Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is an increasingly popular, minimally invasive biopsy.¹ While guided-imaging techniques increase the accuracy of these procedures, the inability to confirm the presence of diagnostic material in real time can lead to costly repeat procedures. Studies² from UPMC have shown that a 24% reduction in unsuccessful biopsies can reduce costs by approximately $404,000 per year.³
To combat recalling the patient and repeating the procedure, a rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of biopsy material is performed by a cytopathologist while the patient awaits the outcome of the evaluation. If required, additional material can be collected until adequacy has been determined. Institutions employing ROSE have reported reduced repeat procedure rates as low as 1% to 2%.¹
However, the growth in ROSE procedures has outpaced availability of cytopathologists. Current practice often requires these specialists to travel in order to attend these procedures, resulting in downtime, loss of productivity, and significant income reduction.
The on-site presence of the SL5 instrument with its remotely controlled robotic microscope in “live” mode allows the cytopathologist to perform a ROSE remotely, thereby eliminating loss of cytopathology income and reduction of overall healthcare costs.
References¹Collins JA Novak A, Ali SZ, Olson MT. Cytotechnologists and On-Site Evaluation of Adequacy. Korean J Pathol. 2013 Oct; 47(5): 405–410. Published online 2013 Oct 25. doi: 10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2013.47.5.405 PubMed
²Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, Larino-Noia J, Eugenyeva E, Lozano-Leon A, Forteza-Vila J. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep;106(9):1705-10. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.119. Epub 2011 Apr 12. PubMed
³Nasuti JF, Gupta PK, Baloch ZW. Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens: review of 5,688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;27:1–4. PubMed