alexa Adequacy evaluation of fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the breast health clinic setting


Journal of Clinical & Experimental Pathology

Author(s): Howell LP, GandourEdwards R, Folkins K, Davis R, Yasmeen S

Abstract Share this page

BACKGROUND: Breast health clinics (BHC) are an unfamiliar source of fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs) in the U.S. and create challenges for adequacy evaluation. The current study described the experience with breast FNAB adequacy evaluation over a 2-year period, the issues that emerged, and the problem-solving employed to mitigate these issues. METHODS: The rate of unsatisfactory FNABs and core biopsies was determined for pathologists, BHC providers, and other clinicians and compared for two different periods. Adequacy criteria during both periods required correlation of the cytologic findings with the clinical and breast imaging findings, and did not require identification of a specific number of ductal epithelial cells. RESULTS: During the first time period, 25% of breast FNABs performed in the BHC received an inadequate evaluation versus 6% performed by pathologists and 14% performed by other clinicians. The BHC adequacy rate exceeded the 20% upper threshold recommended by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and did not decrease after additional FNAB training. During the first time period, 24% of core biopsies received an adequacy evaluation of unsatisfactory. During the second time interval, the core biopsy volume increased and 12% received an unsatisfactory adequacy evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: It is appropriate to use noncellular features such as clinical and imaging findings as adequacy criteria for breast FNABs rather than identification of a minimal number of ductal epithelial cells. However, the 20% upper threshold for unsatisfactory breast FNABs recommended by the NCI was not appropriate for the BHC setting because the nature of the lesions seen in this type of practice can lead to an increase in inadequate specimens and cause unnecessary concern regarding quality. The authors recommended that laboratories receiving a large number of clinician-performed FNABs from a community population, especially a BHC, define their own unsatisfactory threshold above which they will investigate for technical or other problems.

This article was published in Cancer and referenced in Journal of Clinical & Experimental Pathology

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version