Objective: To compare on-site evaluations of adequacy (OSEA) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of the pancreas performed by cytotechnologists and cytopathologists. Study Design: A 10-year retrospective review of 2,426 OSEA from 2,223 procedures in 1,984 patients was performed. Adequacy statistics were calculated along with the accuracy of the OSEA for each OSEA provider. The effect of other variables, including the lifetime number of EUS pancreatic OSEA, the number of years of experience at the time of each case, the institutional number of EUS FNA, and the number of smears was evaluated with ANOVA. Results: There was no difference in the adequacy downgrade rate for cytotechnologists versus cytopathologists during this study period (38.2 vs. 32.2%, p = 0.13). Neither individual cytologist experience with EUS-guided pancreatic FNA (p = 0.25) nor years in practice (p = 0.86) was correlated with the accuracy of the OSEA. The experience of the institution with EUS-guided pancreatic FNA was correlated with both adequacy (p = 0.003) and accuracy (p = 0.000001). Conclusion: Cytotechnologists and cytopathologists are comparably accurate in OSEA of EUS-guided pancreatic FNA. The adequacy and accuracy of the OSEA increase with institutional experience, and this increase is not solely attributable to cytologist factors.

1.
Williams DB, Sahai AV, Aabakken L, Penman ID, van Velse A, Webb J, et al: Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: a large single centre experience. Gut 1999;44:720–726.
2.
Eloubeidi MA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC, Chen VK, Eltoum I, Vickers S, et al: Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2003;25;99:285–292.
3.
Voss M, Hammel P, Molas G, Palazzo L, Dancour A, O’Toole D, et al: Value of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Gut 2000;46:244–249.
4.
Wiersema M, Hawes R, Tao L, Wiersema L, Kopecky K, Rex D, et al: Endoscopic ultrasonography as an adjunct to fine needle aspiration cytology of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointest Endoscop 1992;38:35–39.
5.
Wiersema M, Vilmann P, Giovannini M, Chang K, Wiersema L: Endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: diagnostic accuracy and complication assessment. Gastroenterology 1997;112:1087–1095.
6.
Jhala NC, Jhala DN, Chhieng DC, Eloubeidi MA, Eltoum IA, Eltoum IA: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: a cytopathologist’s perspective. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;120:351–367.
7.
Klapman JB, Logrono R, Dye CE, Waxman I: Clinical impact of on-site cytopathology interpretation on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1289–1294.
8.
Afify AM, al-Khafaji BM, Kim B, Scheiman JM: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas: diagnostic utility and accuracy. Acta Cytol 2003;47:341–348.
9.
Uehara H, Ikezawa K, Kawada N, Fukutake N, Katayama K, Takakura R, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for suspected pancreatic malignancy in relation to the size of lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26:1256–1261.
10.
Leiman G: My approach to pancreatic fine needle aspiration. J Clin Pathol 2007;60:43–49.
11.
Mitsuhashi T, Ghafari S, Chang CY, Gu M: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas: cytomorphological evaluation with emphasis on adequacy assessment, diagnostic criteria and contamination from the gastrointestinal tract. Cytopathology 2006;17:34–41.
12.
Erickson RA, Sayage-Rabie L, Beissner RS: Factors predicting the number of EUS-guided fine-needle passes for diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:184–190.
13.
Nasuti JF, Gupta PK, Baloch ZW: Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens: review of 5,688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:1–4.
14.
Saleh HA, Khatib G: Positive economic and diagnostic accuracy impacts of on-site evaluation of fine needle aspiration biopsies by pathologists. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1227–1230.
15.
Weynand B, Borbath I, Galant C, Piessevaux H, Deprez PH: Optimizing specimen collection and laboratory procedures reduces the non-diagnostic rate for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions of the pancreas. Cytopathology 2011, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00924.x, Epub ahead of print.
16.
Mayall F, Cormack A, Slater S, McAnulty K: The utility of assessing the gross appearances of FNA specimens. Cytopathology 2010;21:395–397.
17.
Prayaga AK, Vijaya K: Role of unstained smears in determining sample adequacy. Acta Cytol 2004;48:321–324.
18.
Nguyen YP, Maple JT, Zhang Q, Ylagan LR, Zhai J, Kohlmeier C, et al: Reliability of gross visual assessment of specimen adequacy during EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:1264–1270.
19.
Savoy AD, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Noh K, Pungpapong S, Jones AD, et al: Can endosonographers evaluate on-site cytologic adequacy? A comparison with cytotechnologists. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:953–957.
20.
Burlingame OO, Kessé KO, Silverman SG, Cibas ES: On-site adequacy evaluations performed by cytotechnologists: correlation with final interpretations of 5,241 image-guided fine needle aspiration biopsies. Cancer Cytopathol 2012;120:177–184.
21.
Cibas ES, Ali SZ, NCI Thyroid FNA State of the Science Conference: The Bethesda System For Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:658–665.
22.
Olson MT, Clark DP, Erozan YS, Ali SZ: Spectrum of risk of malignancy in subcategories of ‘atypia of undetermined significance’. Acta Cytol 2011;55:518–525.
23.
Wotruba AL, Stewart J, Scheberl T, Selvaggi SM: Added value, decreased cost: the evolving role of the cytotechnologist for preliminary screening and triage of thyroid aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:896–899.
24.
Olson MT, Tatsas AD, Ali SZ: Cytotechnologist attended on-site adequacy evaluation of thyroid fine needle aspiration: comparison with cytopathologists and correlation with the final interpretation. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;138:90–95.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.