Search

Background: There is no widely accepted rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) reporting system for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. At the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, ROSE reporting was unstructured. The goal was to evaluate, compare, and improve upon 2 structured approaches proposed in the literature., Methods: One hundred eighteen consecutive nodal aspirates were retrospectively reviewed by a pathology resident and a staff cytopathologist, both of whom were blinded to the original unstructured readings. Each reviewer interpreted every specimen with 2 different structured criteria proposed in the literature: criteria from the University of Minnesota (the Minnesota [MN] criteria) and criteria from the North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System (the New York [NY] criteria). The data allowed a comparison of the original unstructured ROSE system with the MN and NY scoring schemes and the final diagnosis., Results: Original on-site adequacy (OSA) had been assessed at 96%. Three cases were false-adequate according to the original unstructured approach; these had been called adequate on site, but a subsequent slide review including cell blocks did not show definite nodal tissue. OSA dropped to 86% with the MN criteria and to 85% with the NY criteria. No false-adequate on-site diagnoses would have been rendered with the application of either structured criteria. There were no significant differences between the MN and NY criteria with respect to the determination of OSA. An assessment of ease of application favored the NY criteria. With respect to diagnostic categories, each of the systems (MN and NY) was felt to have a category of value not used by the other system., Conclusions: A standardized intra- and inter-institutional system for ROSE reporting is needed. On the basis of comparative analyses and consensus, modifications to prior criteria have been proposed in the hope of approaching this goal., (© 2015 American Cancer Society.)

PAX2 has been cited as a technically robust biomarker which nicely delineates precancerous lesions of the endometrium when the endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) classification scheme is used. Its utility in distinguishing between atypical and nonatypical hyperplasia when applied within the 1994 World Health Organization classification system is questionable. The purpose of this study was to evaluate PAX2 in a side by side comparison of its staining patterns in a series of endometrial samples that were classified using both systems. A total of 108 precancerous endometrial cases were identified, of which 30 cases were deemed nonhyperplastic by consensus agreement and 11 cases lost the tissue of interest on deeper sections. The remaining 67 cases were categorized according to the 1994 World Health Organization criteria and EIN scheme by 2 gynecologic pathologists. PAX2 staining was scored in lesional tissue as normal or altered (lost, increased, or decreased) compared with nonlesional background. The most common pattern of alteration was complete loss of nuclear PAX2 staining (86.3%) followed by decreased staining (11.3%) and markedly increased staining (2.3%). PAX2 alterations correlated well with EIN diagnoses (33/36, 92%) compared with benign hyperplasia (2/13, 15%) but were less useful when the 1994 World Health Organization classification system was applied (PAX2 alteration in 22/25 (88%) of atypical hyperplasia cases versus 16/25 (64%) of nonatypical hyperplasia cases). Forty-five percent of follow-up hysterectomies with a previous PAX2-altered biopsy case harbored adenocarcinoma. In conclusion, PAX2 may be a helpful adjunct stain and training tool when the features of atypical hyperplasia/EIN are in question.