Optimizing cytological specimens of EUS‐FNA of solid pancreatic lesions: A pilot study to the effect of a smear preparation training for endoscopy personnel on sample quality and accuracy

Background In the absence of rapid on‐side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally “smears” endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved thro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diagnostic cytopathology 2021-02, Vol.49 (2), p.295-302
Main Authors: Riet, Priscilla A., Quispel, Rutger, Cahen, Djuna L., Erler, Nicole S., Snijders‐Kruisbergen, Mieke C., Van Loenen, Petri, Poley, Jan‐Werner, Driel, Lydi M.J.W., Mulder, Sanna A., Veldt, Bart J., Leeuwenburgh, Ivonne, Anten, Marie‐Paule G.F., Honkoop, Pieter, Thijssen, Annemieke Y., Hol, Lieke, Hadithi, Mohammed, Fitzpatrick, Claire E., Schot, Ingrid, Bergmann, Jilling F., Bhalla, Abha, Bruno, Marco J., Biermann, Katharina
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
cytopathology
Endoscopy
EUS‐guided tissue sampling
Original
Pancreatic cancer
smear
training
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background In the absence of rapid on‐side pathological evaluation, endoscopy staff generally “smears” endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) specimens on a glass slide. As this technique is vulnerable to preparation artifacts, we assessed if its quality could be improved through a smear‐preparation‐training for endoscopy staff. Methods In this prospective pilot study, 10 endosonographers and 12 endoscopy nurses from seven regional EUS‐centers in the Netherlands were invited to participate in a EUS‐FNA smear‐preparation‐training. Subsequently, post training slides derived from solid pancreatic lesions were compared to pre‐training “control” slides. Primary outcome was to assess if the training positively affects smear quality and, consequently, diagnostic accuracy of EUS‐FNA of solid pancreatic lesions. Results Participants collected and prepared 71 cases, mostly pancreatic head lesions (48%). Sixty‐eight controls were selected from the pretraining period. The presence of artifacts was comparable for smears performed before and after training (76% vs 82%, P = .36). Likewise, smear cellularity (≥50% target cells) before and after training did not differ (44% (30/68) vs 49% (35/71), P = .48). Similar, no difference in diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was detected (P = .10). Conclusion In this pilot EUS‐FNA smear‐preparation‐training for endoscopy personnel, smear quality and diagnostic accuracy were not improved after the training. Based on these results, we plan to further study other training programs and possibilities.
ISSN:8755-1039
1097-0339
DOI:10.1002/dc.24645