Jeffus Susanne K, Joiner Amy K, Siegel Eric R, Massoll Nicole A, Meena Nikhil, Chen Chien, Post Steven R, Bartter Thaddeus
Division of Cytopathology, Department of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Jun;123(6):362-72. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21555. Epub 2015 Apr 30.
There is no widely accepted rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) reporting system for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. At the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, ROSE reporting was unstructured. The goal was to evaluate, compare, and improve upon 2 structured approaches proposed in the literature.
One hundred eighteen consecutive nodal aspirates were retrospectively reviewed by a pathology resident and a staff cytopathologist, both of whom were blinded to the original unstructured readings. Each reviewer interpreted every specimen with 2 different structured criteria proposed in the literature: criteria from the University of Minnesota (the Minnesota [MN] criteria) and criteria from the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System (the New York [NY] criteria). The data allowed a comparison of the original unstructured ROSE system with the MN and NY scoring schemes and the final diagnosis.
Original on-site adequacy (OSA) had been assessed at 96%. Three cases were false-adequate according to the original unstructured approach; these had been called adequate on site, but a subsequent slide review including cell blocks did not show definite nodal tissue. OSA dropped to 86% with the MN criteria and to 85% with the NY criteria. No false-adequate on-site diagnoses would have been rendered with the application of either structured criteria. There were no significant differences between the MN and NY criteria with respect to the determination of OSA. An assessment of ease of application favored the NY criteria. With respect to diagnostic categories, each of the systems (MN and NY) was felt to have a category of value not used by the other system.
A standardized intra- and inter-institutional system for ROSE reporting is needed. On the basis of comparative analyses and consensus, modifications to prior criteria have been proposed in the hope of approaching this goal.
目前尚无广泛接受的用于支气管内超声引导下经支气管针吸活检的快速现场评估(ROSE)报告系统。在阿肯色大学医学科学部,ROSE报告是无组织架构的。目标是评估、比较并改进文献中提出的两种结构化方法。
一名病理住院医师和一名细胞病理学 staff 对118例连续的淋巴结抽吸样本进行回顾性分析,两人均对原始的无组织架构解读不知情。每位审阅者根据文献中提出的两种不同结构化标准解读每个样本:明尼苏达大学的标准(明尼苏达[MN]标准)和北岸长岛犹太医疗系统的标准(纽约[NY]标准)。这些数据允许将原始的无组织架构ROSE系统与MN和NY评分方案以及最终诊断进行比较。
原始现场充足率(OSA)评估为96%。根据原始的无组织架构方法,有3例为假充足;这些在现场被判定为充足,但随后包括细胞块的玻片复查未显示明确的淋巴结组织。使用MN标准时OSA降至86%,使用NY标准时降至85%。应用任何一种结构化标准都不会做出假充足的现场诊断。在OSA的判定方面,MN和NY标准之间没有显著差异。对应用便利性的评估有利于NY标准。在诊断类别方面,每个系统(MN和NY)都被认为有一个另一系统未使用的有价值类别。
需要一个标准化的机构内和机构间ROSE报告系统。基于比较分析和共识,已对先前标准提出修改建议,以期实现这一目标。