Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Touch imprint (TI) cytology of needle core biopsies (NCB) in pathology laboratories: A practice survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Non Gynecologic Cytopathology (NGC) Education Program.
Padmanabhan, Vijayalakshmi; Barkan, Güliz A; Tabatabai, Laura; Souers, Rhona; Nayar, Ritu; Crothers, Barbara A.
Afiliação
  • Padmanabhan V; Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas.
  • Barkan GA; Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas.
  • Tabatabai L; Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas.
  • Souers R; Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas.
  • Nayar R; Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas.
  • Crothers BA; Department of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas.
Diagn Cytopathol ; 47(3): 149-155, 2019 Mar.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30468295
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Intra-procedural assessment of touch imprint (TI) cytology from needle core biopsies (NCB) is used to ensure sample adequacy and to provide immediate diagnosis in various settings. We aimed to survey laboratories for current practices on the use of cytology with NCB.

METHODS:

A voluntary supplemental questionnaire including questions on demographics, personnel involved, sites, accessioning, and reporting was sent with the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2015 Non gynecologic Cytopathology Education Program to survey practices of cytologic assessment of NCB.

RESULTS:

Among 844 respondents, 403 (48%) performed cytologic assessment of NCB. Common body sites included lung (94%; 368/392), liver (87%; 340/ 392), and lymph nodes/spleen (77%; 303/392). Most of the time, a pathologist was present on-site 75% (295/393) for adequacy assessment which was usually verbally reported to the provider performing the procedure. Specimens were prepared by cytotechnologists (50%; 193 of 388) or pathologists (45%; 176 of 388) by touching the core to the slide (50%; 196 of 390) and rolling the core on the slide (45%; 177/390). Among the respondents, 19% said that cytotechnologists independently performed immediate assessment of TI of NCB. Most laboratories (69%; 264/384) evaluated air-dried slides with a modified Giemsa stain and rendered one TI/NCB combined report (87%, 334/385).

CONCLUSIONS:

This is the first survey performed specifically to determine the practice of adequacy assessment of TI of NCB. Cytotechnologists are generally not performing adequacy assessment of TI without pathologist oversight. A single report is usually issued which includes the adequacy assessment as a part of the final report.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Patologia Clínica / Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde / Padrões de Prática Médica / Citodiagnóstico Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Patologia Clínica / Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde / Padrões de Prática Médica / Citodiagnóstico Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article