Touch imprint (TI) cytology of needle core biopsies (NCB) in pathology laboratories: A practice survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Non Gynecologic Cytopathology (NGC) Education Program

• Published in: Diagnostic cytopathology Vol. 47; no. 3; pp. 149 - 155
• Main Authors: Padmanabhan, Vijayalakshmi, Barkan, Güliz A., Tabatabai, Laura, Souers, Rhona, Nayar, Ritu, Crothers, Barbara A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.03.2019; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: adequacy assessment; Allied Health Personnel; Biopsy; Biopsy, Large-Core Needle; Cellular biology; Cytodiagnosis - methods; Cytology; Cytopathology; Demographics; Demography; Humans; Laboratories; Liver; Lungs; Lymph nodes; needle core biopsies; Pathology, Clinical - methods; practice patterns; Practice Patterns, Physicians; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Spleen; Surveys and Questionnaires; Touch; touch imprint; needle core biopsies; adequacy assessment; cytology; touch imprint; practice patterns
• ISSN: 8755-1039; 1097-0339
• DOI: 10.1002/dc.24023

Background Intra‐procedural assessment of touch imprint (TI) cytology from needle core biopsies (NCB) is used to ensure sample adequacy and to provide immediate diagnosis in various settings. We aimed to survey laboratories for current practices on the use of cytology with NCB. Methods A voluntary supplemental questionnaire including questions on demographics, personnel involved, sites, accessioning, and reporting was sent with the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2015 Non gynecologic Cytopathology Education Program to survey practices of cytologic assessment of NCB. Results Among 844 respondents, 403 (48%) performed cytologic assessment of NCB. Common body sites included lung (94%; 368/392), liver (87%; 340/ 392), and lymph nodes/spleen (77%; 303/392). Most of the time, a pathologist was present on‐site 75% (295/393) for adequacy assessment which was usually verbally reported to the provider performing the procedure. Specimens were prepared by cytotechnologists (50%; 193 of 388) or pathologists (45%; 176 of 388) by touching the core to the slide (50%; 196 of 390) and rolling the core on the slide (45%; 177/390). Among the respondents, 19% said that cytotechnologists independently performed immediate assessment of TI of NCB. Most laboratories (69%; 264/384) evaluated air‐dried slides with a modified Giemsa stain and rendered one TI/NCB combined report (87%, 334/385). Conclusions This is the first survey performed specifically to determine the practice of adequacy assessment of TI of NCB. Cytotechnologists are generally not performing adequacy assessment of TI without pathologist oversight. A single report is usually issued which includes the adequacy assessment as a part of the final report.