Improving ROSE

Discrepant touch preparation and histology findings in cytology of renal masses: A 10-year retrospective review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The number of “renal incidentalomas” is on the rise due to increasing use of radiologic studies. Image-guided core needle biopsies (CNB) with touch preparations are performed to guide specimen collection and triage of sample for additional studies. Results allow the clinical team to make appropriate treatment decisions. Design: Our electronic database was searched for a 10-year period to identify 180 image-guided biopsies of renal masses with rapid on-site evaluations (ROSE) and corresponding biopsy/resection specimens. Touch preparations were classified as non-diagnostic, negative/benign, adequate/positive for malignancy/oncocytic predominance, or atypical. These results were compared to the final diagnosis on the biopsy or resection specimen (if available). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined. Non-diagnostic cases and cases in which ROSE and final diagnosis were discordant were reviewed by cytopathologists blinded to the original interpretation to reconcile discrepancies and highlight interpretation pitfalls. Results: A ROSE diagnosis was rendered in 133 of 180 cases; 47 cases were non-diagnostic. Of the 133 diagnostic cases, the ROSE diagnosis was concordant with the core biopsy final diagnosis in 125 cases, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 94%. The overall sensitivity was calculated to be 80.1%; specificity 72.4%; positive predictive value 94%; and negative predictive value 41.2%. Conclusions: Touch preparation slides are vital but imperfect tools in evaluating renal masses. In our study, distinction between malignant and benign samples was accomplished in most cases (94% accuracy), but there are limitations. Awareness of interpretation pitfalls allows informed decisions to be made regarding specimen collection and patient management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)999-1006
Number of pages8
JournalDiagnostic cytopathology
Volume47
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2019

Fingerprint

antineoplaston A10
Touch
Cell Biology
Histology
Kidney
Specimen Handling
Biopsy
Image-Guided Biopsy
Large-Core Needle Biopsy
Triage
Databases
Sensitivity and Specificity
Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology

Cite this

@article{e37375092de343bf84643a04e847faae,
title = "Improving ROSE: Discrepant touch preparation and histology findings in cytology of renal masses: A 10-year retrospective review",
abstract = "Background: The number of “renal incidentalomas” is on the rise due to increasing use of radiologic studies. Image-guided core needle biopsies (CNB) with touch preparations are performed to guide specimen collection and triage of sample for additional studies. Results allow the clinical team to make appropriate treatment decisions. Design: Our electronic database was searched for a 10-year period to identify 180 image-guided biopsies of renal masses with rapid on-site evaluations (ROSE) and corresponding biopsy/resection specimens. Touch preparations were classified as non-diagnostic, negative/benign, adequate/positive for malignancy/oncocytic predominance, or atypical. These results were compared to the final diagnosis on the biopsy or resection specimen (if available). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined. Non-diagnostic cases and cases in which ROSE and final diagnosis were discordant were reviewed by cytopathologists blinded to the original interpretation to reconcile discrepancies and highlight interpretation pitfalls. Results: A ROSE diagnosis was rendered in 133 of 180 cases; 47 cases were non-diagnostic. Of the 133 diagnostic cases, the ROSE diagnosis was concordant with the core biopsy final diagnosis in 125 cases, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 94{\%}. The overall sensitivity was calculated to be 80.1{\%}; specificity 72.4{\%}; positive predictive value 94{\%}; and negative predictive value 41.2{\%}. Conclusions: Touch preparation slides are vital but imperfect tools in evaluating renal masses. In our study, distinction between malignant and benign samples was accomplished in most cases (94{\%} accuracy), but there are limitations. Awareness of interpretation pitfalls allows informed decisions to be made regarding specimen collection and patient management.",
author = "Shachner, {Tracy R.} and Laurentia Nodit and Elizabeth Hubbard and {Van Meter}, Stuart",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/dc.24253",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "999--1006",
journal = "Diagnostic Cytopathology",
issn = "8755-1039",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving ROSE

T2 - Discrepant touch preparation and histology findings in cytology of renal masses: A 10-year retrospective review

AU - Shachner, Tracy R.

AU - Nodit, Laurentia

AU - Hubbard, Elizabeth

AU - Van Meter, Stuart

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - Background: The number of “renal incidentalomas” is on the rise due to increasing use of radiologic studies. Image-guided core needle biopsies (CNB) with touch preparations are performed to guide specimen collection and triage of sample for additional studies. Results allow the clinical team to make appropriate treatment decisions. Design: Our electronic database was searched for a 10-year period to identify 180 image-guided biopsies of renal masses with rapid on-site evaluations (ROSE) and corresponding biopsy/resection specimens. Touch preparations were classified as non-diagnostic, negative/benign, adequate/positive for malignancy/oncocytic predominance, or atypical. These results were compared to the final diagnosis on the biopsy or resection specimen (if available). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined. Non-diagnostic cases and cases in which ROSE and final diagnosis were discordant were reviewed by cytopathologists blinded to the original interpretation to reconcile discrepancies and highlight interpretation pitfalls. Results: A ROSE diagnosis was rendered in 133 of 180 cases; 47 cases were non-diagnostic. Of the 133 diagnostic cases, the ROSE diagnosis was concordant with the core biopsy final diagnosis in 125 cases, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 94%. The overall sensitivity was calculated to be 80.1%; specificity 72.4%; positive predictive value 94%; and negative predictive value 41.2%. Conclusions: Touch preparation slides are vital but imperfect tools in evaluating renal masses. In our study, distinction between malignant and benign samples was accomplished in most cases (94% accuracy), but there are limitations. Awareness of interpretation pitfalls allows informed decisions to be made regarding specimen collection and patient management.

AB - Background: The number of “renal incidentalomas” is on the rise due to increasing use of radiologic studies. Image-guided core needle biopsies (CNB) with touch preparations are performed to guide specimen collection and triage of sample for additional studies. Results allow the clinical team to make appropriate treatment decisions. Design: Our electronic database was searched for a 10-year period to identify 180 image-guided biopsies of renal masses with rapid on-site evaluations (ROSE) and corresponding biopsy/resection specimens. Touch preparations were classified as non-diagnostic, negative/benign, adequate/positive for malignancy/oncocytic predominance, or atypical. These results were compared to the final diagnosis on the biopsy or resection specimen (if available). Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined. Non-diagnostic cases and cases in which ROSE and final diagnosis were discordant were reviewed by cytopathologists blinded to the original interpretation to reconcile discrepancies and highlight interpretation pitfalls. Results: A ROSE diagnosis was rendered in 133 of 180 cases; 47 cases were non-diagnostic. Of the 133 diagnostic cases, the ROSE diagnosis was concordant with the core biopsy final diagnosis in 125 cases, yielding a diagnostic accuracy of 94%. The overall sensitivity was calculated to be 80.1%; specificity 72.4%; positive predictive value 94%; and negative predictive value 41.2%. Conclusions: Touch preparation slides are vital but imperfect tools in evaluating renal masses. In our study, distinction between malignant and benign samples was accomplished in most cases (94% accuracy), but there are limitations. Awareness of interpretation pitfalls allows informed decisions to be made regarding specimen collection and patient management.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067358899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067358899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/dc.24253

DO - 10.1002/dc.24253

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 999

EP - 1006

JO - Diagnostic Cytopathology

JF - Diagnostic Cytopathology

SN - 8755-1039

IS - 10

ER -