Background Historically, sampling of adrenal lesions has been performed by percutaneous image‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy. Endoscopic ultrasound guided (EUS)‐FNA of the adrenals was first employed at Cleveland Clinic ~10 years ago. We report a two‐decade experience of adrenal FNA in our institution. Methods An electronic retrieval identified adrenal FNAs from 1997 to 2017. Data points from each case (diagnosis, method of FNA, age, sex, laterality, needle gauge, size of lesion, adequacy of sample, and histologic follow up) were analyzed. Results Our retrieval confirmed 198 adrenal FNAs performed over 20 years. Of these, 90% (179/198) were percutaneous, and the remaining 10% (19/198) were collected by EUS. Of the 179 CT guided FNAs, 93% (162/179) yielded an adequate specimen as compared with an adequacy rate of 89% (17/19) for EUS‐FNAs, with no significant difference in adequacy rates by collection method, P = .64 (Fisher's exact). Of all adrenal FNAs, 53% (105/198) confirmed metastases, 33% (65/198) showed adrenal cells or primary adrenal neoplasms (85% cortical cells, 14% cortical neoplasia, 1% pheochromocytoma), 8% were inadequate (15/198), 3% were atypical (7/198), and 2% were suspicious for malignancy (5/198). Conclusion FNA of the adrenal glands can be useful in the diagnosis and staging of metastatic neoplasms, as well as in distinguishing primary adrenal cortical from medullary neoplasms and characterizing hematolymphoid and mesenchymal neoplasms. Overall adequacy rates for adrenal cytology are high (92%) with no statistically significant difference between CT‐guided (93%) and EUS‐FNA adequacy (89%). The majority of our procedures confirmed metastases, sparing patients unnecessary surgery.

BACKGROUND:The cytological diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma (MM) on serous effusion is challenging due to significant morphologic overlap with reactive mesothelial cells and adenocarcinoma. One of the morphologic features of MM in effusion cytology, small orangiophilic squamous-like cells (SOSLC), has received little attention.To the best of the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to assess the sensitivity and specificity of

BACKGROUND Gynecologic screening cytology is a complex task that includes microscopic activities and nonmicroscopic activities. The authors sought to determine the amount and percentage of time that cytotechnologists spend on those activities using the ThinPrep imaging system. METHODS In arm 1, a total of 550 consecutive unselected slides were reviewed by 11 cytotechnologists, and the time used for individual subtasks of the screening process was recorded. In arm 2, a total of 20 unselected slides were each screened by 10 different cytotechnologists (200 slides in total) and total screening times and full manual review (FMR) times were recorded. RESULTS In arm 1, cases with and without FMR required an average of 5.6 minutes and 3.0 minutes, respectively, to screen. Overall, review of fields of view (FOVs) took 95 seconds. FMR took an average of 2.6 minutes. The average screening times for FOV‐only cases was significantly longer than the US Food and Drug Administration/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (FDA/CMS) workload limit of 2.4 minutes (P = .005). However, in arm 2, the time needed to screen a case increased by an average of 1 minute compared with arm 1, including 1.1 minute for FOV‐only cases and >2 minutes for FMR plus FOV cases. Approximately 100% of cases screened as FOV only exceeded the FDA/CMS workload limit of 2.4 minutes. CONCLUSIONS The FDA/CMS workload limits for FOV‐only cases appears to significantly underestimate the time needed to screen those cases, but seems to be appropriate for the majority of FMR plus FOV cases. Approximately 60% and 30% of the time designated to screening slides was spent on nonmicroscopic activities for FOV‐only cases and FMR cases, respectively. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:501–7. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

No abstract

No abstract