2021 年的胰胆细胞学实践:美国病理学家学会调查结果。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.5858/arpa.2023-0167-CP
Zaibo Li, Sana O Tabbara, Ann Nwosu, Rhona J Souers, Abha Goyal, Elizabeth M Kurian, Xiaoqi Lin, Christopher VandenBussche, Lananh N Nguyen
{"title":"2021 年的胰胆细胞学实践:美国病理学家学会调查结果。","authors":"Zaibo Li, Sana O Tabbara, Ann Nwosu, Rhona J Souers, Abha Goyal, Elizabeth M Kurian, Xiaoqi Lin, Christopher VandenBussche, Lananh N Nguyen","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0167-CP","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys provide national benchmarks of pathology practice.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice in domestic and international laboratories in 2021.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>We analyzed data from the CAP Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Practice Supplemental Questionnaire that was distributed to laboratories participating in the 2021 CAP Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Ninety-three percent (567 of 612) of respondent laboratories routinely evaluated pancreaticobiliary cytology specimens. Biliary brushing (85%) was the most common pancreaticobiliary cytology specimen evaluated, followed by pancreatic fine-needle aspiration (79%). The most used sampling methods reported by 235 laboratories were 22-gauge needle for fine-needle aspiration (62%) and SharkCore needle for fine-needle biopsy (27%). Cell block was the most used slide preparation method (76%), followed by liquid-based cytology (59%) for pancreatic cystic lesions. Up to 95% (303 of 320) of laboratories performed rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on pancreatic solid lesions, while 56% (180 of 320) performed ROSE for cystic lesions. Thirty-six percent (193 of 530) of laboratories used the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology in 2021. Among all institution types, significant differences in specimen volume, specimen type, ROSE practice, and case sign-out were identified. Additionally, significant differences in specimen type, slide preparation, and ROSE practice were found.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>This is the first survey from the CAP to investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice. The findings reveal significant differences among institution types and between domestic and international laboratories. These data provide a baseline for future studies in a variety of practice settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8305,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Practice in 2021: Results of a College of American Pathologists Survey.\",\"authors\":\"Zaibo Li, Sana O Tabbara, Ann Nwosu, Rhona J Souers, Abha Goyal, Elizabeth M Kurian, Xiaoqi Lin, Christopher VandenBussche, Lananh N Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.5858/arpa.2023-0167-CP\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>The College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys provide national benchmarks of pathology practice.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice in domestic and international laboratories in 2021.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>We analyzed data from the CAP Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Practice Supplemental Questionnaire that was distributed to laboratories participating in the 2021 CAP Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Ninety-three percent (567 of 612) of respondent laboratories routinely evaluated pancreaticobiliary cytology specimens. Biliary brushing (85%) was the most common pancreaticobiliary cytology specimen evaluated, followed by pancreatic fine-needle aspiration (79%). The most used sampling methods reported by 235 laboratories were 22-gauge needle for fine-needle aspiration (62%) and SharkCore needle for fine-needle biopsy (27%). Cell block was the most used slide preparation method (76%), followed by liquid-based cytology (59%) for pancreatic cystic lesions. Up to 95% (303 of 320) of laboratories performed rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on pancreatic solid lesions, while 56% (180 of 320) performed ROSE for cystic lesions. Thirty-six percent (193 of 530) of laboratories used the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology in 2021. Among all institution types, significant differences in specimen volume, specimen type, ROSE practice, and case sign-out were identified. Additionally, significant differences in specimen type, slide preparation, and ROSE practice were found.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>This is the first survey from the CAP to investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice. The findings reveal significant differences among institution types and between domestic and international laboratories. These data provide a baseline for future studies in a variety of practice settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0167-CP\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0167-CP","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景美国病理学家学会(CAP)的调查提供了病理学实践的国家基准:调查 2021 年国内外实验室的胰胆管细胞学实践:我们分析了CAP胰胆细胞学实践补充问卷中的数据,该问卷已分发给参与2021年CAP非妇科细胞病理学教育计划的实验室:93%的受访实验室(612 家实验室中的 567 家)对胰胆管细胞学标本进行常规评估。胆道刷片(85%)是最常用的胰胆细胞学标本,其次是胰腺细针穿刺(79%)。235 家实验室报告的最常用取样方法是 22 号针细针穿刺(62%)和鲨鱼芯针细针活检(27%)。细胞块是胰腺囊性病变最常用的切片制备方法(76%),其次是液基细胞学(59%)。高达 95% 的实验室(320 家实验室中的 303 家)对胰腺实体病变进行了快速现场评估 (ROSE),而 56% 的实验室(320 家实验室中的 180 家)对胰腺囊性病变进行了 ROSE。36%的实验室(530 家中的 193 家)在 2021 年使用了巴氏细胞病理学会的胰胆管细胞学报告系统。在所有机构类型中,标本量、标本类型、ROSE实践和病例签出均存在显著差异。此外,在标本类型、玻片制备和ROSE实践方面也发现了明显差异:这是 CAP 首次对胰胆细胞学实践进行调查。结论:这是 CAP 首次对胰胆管细胞学实践进行调查,调查结果显示了不同机构类型之间以及国内外实验室之间的显著差异。这些数据为今后在各种实践环境中开展研究提供了基线。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Practice in 2021: Results of a College of American Pathologists Survey.

Context.—: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys provide national benchmarks of pathology practice.

Objective.—: To investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice in domestic and international laboratories in 2021.

Design.—: We analyzed data from the CAP Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Practice Supplemental Questionnaire that was distributed to laboratories participating in the 2021 CAP Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program.

Results.—: Ninety-three percent (567 of 612) of respondent laboratories routinely evaluated pancreaticobiliary cytology specimens. Biliary brushing (85%) was the most common pancreaticobiliary cytology specimen evaluated, followed by pancreatic fine-needle aspiration (79%). The most used sampling methods reported by 235 laboratories were 22-gauge needle for fine-needle aspiration (62%) and SharkCore needle for fine-needle biopsy (27%). Cell block was the most used slide preparation method (76%), followed by liquid-based cytology (59%) for pancreatic cystic lesions. Up to 95% (303 of 320) of laboratories performed rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on pancreatic solid lesions, while 56% (180 of 320) performed ROSE for cystic lesions. Thirty-six percent (193 of 530) of laboratories used the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology in 2021. Among all institution types, significant differences in specimen volume, specimen type, ROSE practice, and case sign-out were identified. Additionally, significant differences in specimen type, slide preparation, and ROSE practice were found.

Conclusions.—: This is the first survey from the CAP to investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice. The findings reveal significant differences among institution types and between domestic and international laboratories. These data provide a baseline for future studies in a variety of practice settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
369
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Welcome to the website of the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine (APLM). This monthly, peer-reviewed journal of the College of American Pathologists offers global reach and highest measured readership among pathology journals. Published since 1926, ARCHIVES was voted in 2009 the only pathology journal among the top 100 most influential journals of the past 100 years by the BioMedical and Life Sciences Division of the Special Libraries Association. Online access to the full-text and PDF files of APLM articles is free.
期刊最新文献
Neoplastic Progression in Intraductal Papillary Neoplasm of the Bile Duct. Neoplastic Progression in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of the Pancreas. Oncocytic Follicular Cell-Derived Thyroid Tumors With Papillary Growth Pattern: A Clinicopathologic Study of 32 Cases. Back-to-Back Comparison of Third-Generation Sequencing and Next-Generation Sequencing in Carrier Screening of Thalassemia. Hypertrophic Lichen Planus: An Up-to-Date Review and Differential Diagnosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1