Background/aim: The presence of on-site cytopathologists improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses; however, on-site cytopathologists are not available to all endoscopic units. We hypothesized that experienced cytotechnicians can accurately assess whether an on-site pancreatic mass fine needle aspiration specimen is adequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of formal cytotechnician training on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Methods: Single-centre, prospective study. The cytotechnician made an on-site assessment of specimen adequacy with immediate evaluation of smears over a 12-month period (pre-training period) then over another 12-month period (post-training period), with a year's intermediate training when the cytopatholgist and the cytotechnician worked together in the room. The gold standard used to establish the final diagnosis was based on a non-equivocal fine needle aspiration biopsy reviewed by the same expert cytopathologist. The main outcome measurements were the cytotechnician diagnostic accuracy before and after the training period. Results: A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the pre-training period. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 68.2% (73/107). The diagnostic accuracy was 74.8%. The adequacy for the blind-review pathologist was 93.4% (100/107), significantly higher (p = 0.008) than the cytotechnician's results. During the post-training period, 95 EUS-FNA were performed and reviewed. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 87.4% (83/95). The diagnostic accuracy was 90.5%. The adequacy for the blinded pathologist was 95.8% (91/95), not significantly different from the cytotechnician (p = 0.23). Conclusions: An adequate training period with an expert pathologist significantly improves the cytotechnician skill in terms of judging adequacy and diagnostic accuracy. (C) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Z8 0 ZR 0 ZS 0

Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses? / Petrone, Mc; Arcidiacono, Pg; Carrara, S; Mezzi, G; Doglioni, Claudio; Testoni, PIER ALBERTO. - In: DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE. - ISSN 1590-8658. - 44:4(2012), pp. 311-314. [10.1016/j.dld.2011.12.001]

Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses?

Arcidiacono PG;DOGLIONI , CLAUDIO;TESTONI , PIER ALBERTO
2012-01-01

Abstract

Background/aim: The presence of on-site cytopathologists improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses; however, on-site cytopathologists are not available to all endoscopic units. We hypothesized that experienced cytotechnicians can accurately assess whether an on-site pancreatic mass fine needle aspiration specimen is adequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of formal cytotechnician training on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Methods: Single-centre, prospective study. The cytotechnician made an on-site assessment of specimen adequacy with immediate evaluation of smears over a 12-month period (pre-training period) then over another 12-month period (post-training period), with a year's intermediate training when the cytopatholgist and the cytotechnician worked together in the room. The gold standard used to establish the final diagnosis was based on a non-equivocal fine needle aspiration biopsy reviewed by the same expert cytopathologist. The main outcome measurements were the cytotechnician diagnostic accuracy before and after the training period. Results: A total of 107 patients were enrolled in the pre-training period. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 68.2% (73/107). The diagnostic accuracy was 74.8%. The adequacy for the blind-review pathologist was 93.4% (100/107), significantly higher (p = 0.008) than the cytotechnician's results. During the post-training period, 95 EUS-FNA were performed and reviewed. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 87.4% (83/95). The diagnostic accuracy was 90.5%. The adequacy for the blinded pathologist was 95.8% (91/95), not significantly different from the cytotechnician (p = 0.23). Conclusions: An adequate training period with an expert pathologist significantly improves the cytotechnician skill in terms of judging adequacy and diagnostic accuracy. (C) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Z8 0 ZR 0 ZS 0
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/95714
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 29
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact