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

Vijayalakshmi Padmanabhan, Güliz A. Barkan, Laura Tabatabai, Rhona Souers, Ritu Nayar, Barbara A. Crothers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)149-155
Number of pages7
JournalDiagnostic Cytopathology
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Large-Core Needle Biopsy
Touch
Cell Biology
Pathology
Education
Azure Stains
Surveys and Questionnaires
Pathologists
Spleen
Lymph Nodes
Air
Demography
Lung
Liver

Keywords

  • adequacy assessment
  • cytology
  • needle core biopsies
  • practice patterns
  • touch imprint

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology

Cite this

@article{19c2cbf8f01a407e915dbc51f347bc4d,
title = "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",
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.",
keywords = "adequacy assessment, cytology, needle core biopsies, practice patterns, touch imprint",
author = "Vijayalakshmi Padmanabhan and Barkan, {G{\"u}liz A.} and Laura Tabatabai and Rhona Souers and Ritu Nayar and Crothers, {Barbara A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/dc.24023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "149--155",
journal = "Diagnostic Cytopathology",
issn = "8755-1039",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "3",

}

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.

In: Diagnostic Cytopathology, Vol. 47, No. 3, 01.03.2019, p. 149-155.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Touch imprint (TI) cytology of needle core biopsies (NCB) in pathology laboratories

T2 - A practice survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Non Gynecologic Cytopathology (NGC) Education Program

AU - Padmanabhan, Vijayalakshmi

AU - Barkan, Güliz A.

AU - Tabatabai, Laura

AU - Souers, Rhona

AU - Nayar, Ritu

AU - Crothers, Barbara A.

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - adequacy assessment

KW - cytology

KW - needle core biopsies

KW - practice patterns

KW - touch imprint

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057021770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85057021770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/dc.24023

DO - 10.1002/dc.24023

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 149

EP - 155

JO - Diagnostic Cytopathology

JF - Diagnostic Cytopathology

SN - 8755-1039

IS - 3

ER -