Does cytotechnician training influence the accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic masses?

Background/aimThe presence of on-site cytopathologists improves the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses; however, on-site cytopathologists are not available to all endoscopic units. We hypothesized that experienced cytotechnicians can accurately assess whether an on-site pancreatic mass fine needle aspiration specimen is adequate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of formal cytotechnician training on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.MethodsSingle-centre, prospective study. The cytotechnician made an on-site assessment of specimen adequacy with immediate evaluation of smears over a 12-month period (pre-training period) then over another 12-month period (post-training period), with a year's intermediate training when the cytopathologist and the cytotechnician worked together in the room. The gold standard used to establish the final diagnosis was based on a non-equivocal fine needle aspiration biopsy reviewed by the same expert cytopathologist. The main outcome measurements were the cytotechnician diagnostic accuracy before and after the training period.ResultsA total of 107 patients were enrolled in the pre-training period. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 68.2% (73/107). The diagnostic accuracy was 74.8%. The adequacy for the blind-review pathologist was 93.4% (100/107), significantly higher (p = 0.008) than the cytotechnician's results. During the post-training period, 95 EUS-FNA were performed and reviewed. Cytotechnician in-room adequacy was 87.4% (83/95). The diagnostic accuracy was 90.5%. The adequacy for the blinded pathologist was 95.8% (91/95), not significantly different from the cytotechnician (p = 0.23).ConclusionsAn adequate training period with an expert pathologist significantly improves the cytotechnician skill in terms of judging adequacy and diagnostic accuracy.