Results from the 2019 American Society of Cytopathology survey on rapid on-site evaluation-Part 1: objective practice patterns

Paul A VanderLaan; Yigu Chen; Deepu Alex; Ronald Balassanian; Jackie Cuda; Rana S Hoda; Peter B Illei; Cindy M McGrath; Melissa L Randolph; Jordan P Reynolds; Amy J Spiczka; Meredith A VandeHaar; Annemieke van Zante; Jennifer L Sauter; American Society of Cytopathology Clinical Practice Committee

doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2019.07.007

Results from the 2019 American Society of Cytopathology survey on rapid on-site evaluation-Part 1: objective practice patterns

J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2019 Nov-Dec;8(6):333-341. doi: 10.1016/j.jasc.2019.07.007. Epub 2019 Aug 8.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: pvanderl@bidmc.harvard.edu.
² Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
³ Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
⁴ Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
⁵ Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
⁶ CBLPath, Rye Brook, New York.
⁷ Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.
⁸ Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center and Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
⁹ Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
¹⁰ Robert J. Tomsich Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
¹¹ American Society for Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Illinois.
¹² Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
¹³ Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

PMID: 31495750
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasc.2019.07.007

Abstract

Introduction: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is a service provided by cytologists that helps ensure specimen adequacy and appropriate triage for ancillary testing. However, data on the current usage patterns across different practice settings have been lacking.

Materials and methods: To obtain an accurate and timely assessment of the current state of practice of ROSE, a 14-question online survey was constructed by the Clinical Practice Committee of the American Society for Cytopathology. The survey was available to the membership of the American Society for Cytopathology for a 3-week period in early 2019.

Results: A total of 541 responses were received, including from 255 cytopathologists/pathologists, 261 cytotechnologists, 19 cytology resident/fellow trainees, and 6 others. ROSE was offered as a clinical service by 95.4% of the respondents, with telecytology for ROSE used in 21.9% of the practices. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration was the procedure most frequently reported to use ROSE (mean, 59.1%; median, 70%). Cytotechnologists were involved in ROSE in most practices. The number of daily ROSE procedures correlated with the annual nongynecologic cytology volumes. Approximately 70% of ROSE procedures were reported to require >30 minutes, on average, for the cytologist.

Conclusions: The results from our survey of cytologists have shown that the reported practice patterns for the usage of ROSE vary considerably. The presented data can help inform future guideline recommendations and the implementation of ROSE in different clinical settings.

Keywords: Cytopathologist; Cytotechnologist; EBUS-TBNA; EUS-FNA; FNA; ROSE; Rapid on-site evaluation.

MeSH terms

Cytodiagnosis / methods*
Humans
Practice Patterns, Physicians'*
Societies, Scientific*
Surveys and Questionnaires*

Grants and funding

P30 CA008748/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States