Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology · 2022
Assessing ROSE for adequacy of EBUS-TBNA compared with a direct-to-cell block approach as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhao Xing, Boothe Paul, Hussnain Naqvi Syeda Mahrukh, Henderson-Jackson Evita, Mela Nancy, Centeno Barbara A, Tandon Amit, Bui Marilyn M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been used during the endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) procedure as standard practice. Because of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, our institute had had to discontinue ROSE and adopt a direct-to-cell block approach. In the present study, we aimed to determine whether this change has had significant effects on the cytopathology quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1903 EBUS-TBNA cases from 734 patients were collected (1097 cases with ROSE for 452 patients; 806 cases without ROSE but with direct-to-cell block for 282 patients). The clinical and cytology data were analyzed using SAS, version 9.4, software to render calculated standardized residuals and a fitted multivariate generalized linear model.
RESULTS: On average, a biopsy from a patient with ROSE was 0.936 (=exp -0.066) times less likely to be reported as satisfactory compared with a biopsy from a patient without ROSE, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.785). The inadequacy rate of EBUS-TBNA was 6.4% higher on average for cases with ROSE compared with a direct-to-cell block approach. However, this difference was also not statistically significant. The proportions of biopsies reported as diagnostic for malignancy and other were significantly different between the ROSE and no-ROSE groups with a standardized residual of 1.80 (P = 0.036) and -2.27 (P = 0.012), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuing ROSE and using a direct-to-cell block approach had no negative effects on cytopathology quality. This practice can be considered acceptable during the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing and the shortage of staff and supplies have resulted in challenges to delivering quality care to cancer patients whose treatment cannot be postponed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1903 EBUS-TBNA cases from 734 patients were collected (1097 cases with ROSE for 452 patients; 806 cases without ROSE but with direct-to-cell block for 282 patients). The clinical and cytology data were analyzed using SAS, version 9.4, software to render calculated standardized residuals and a fitted multivariate generalized linear model.
RESULTS: On average, a biopsy from a patient with ROSE was 0.936 (=exp -0.066) times less likely to be reported as satisfactory compared with a biopsy from a patient without ROSE, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.785). The inadequacy rate of EBUS-TBNA was 6.4% higher on average for cases with ROSE compared with a direct-to-cell block approach. However, this difference was also not statistically significant. The proportions of biopsies reported as diagnostic for malignancy and other were significantly different between the ROSE and no-ROSE groups with a standardized residual of 1.80 (P = 0.036) and -2.27 (P = 0.012), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuing ROSE and using a direct-to-cell block approach had no negative effects on cytopathology quality. This practice can be considered acceptable during the COVID-19 pandemic when social distancing and the shortage of staff and supplies have resulted in challenges to delivering quality care to cancer patients whose treatment cannot be postponed.