Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Introduction: Telecytopathology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been shown to be an alternative to rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). Gastroenterologists (endosonographers) performing EUS-FNA can be trained to evaluate a specimen for adequacy. This study examined the ability of an endosonographer with focused cytopathologic training to assess the adequacy of pancreatic FNA specimens and transmit diagnostic images to a remotely located cytopathologist as compared to an experienced cytotechnologist.
Materials And Methods: This was a retrospective study of consecutive pancreatic lesions sampled by EUS-FNA reviewed by an endosonographer and a cytotechnologist. The participants were assessed based on their ability to (1) determine adequacy, (2) locate and transmit representative cell groups, (3) provide a preliminary diagnosis, and (4) provide concordance with actual diagnosis.
Results: 105 consecutive cases of EUS-FNA of the pancreas were analyzed, including: adenocarcinoma (n = 39), cyst (n = 17), neuroendocrine neoplasia (n = 7), pancreatitis (n = 14), benign pancreas (n = 9), other neoplasms (n = 6), suspicious/atypical (n = 3), and nondiagnostic (n = 10). The cytotechnologist demonstrated superiority in accuracy 92.7% versus 70% (P = 0.003) and subcategorization 95.0% versus 76% (P = 0.007). There was no difference in "broad" categorization (benign/malignant) between the endosonographer and cytotechnologist, 98% and 98.2% (P = 0.946), respectively. Also, there was no difference with regard to adequacy assessment (P = 0.29). A steady learning curve for the endosonographer was demonstrated in their cytologic assessment (P = 0.041). The endosonographer was shown to be able to remotely transmit diagnostic images to a pathologist.
Conclusion: An endosonographer with limited training can examine for specimen adequacy, transmit images, and demonstrate representative cell groups. Larger studies are required though preliminary results are encouraging.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2017.09.006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!