Science News

Cost-effectiveness of rapid onsite evaluation of the adequacy of FNA cytology samples performed by nonpathologists.

A new interesting article has been published in Cancer Cytopathol. 2018 Oct 12. doi: 10.1002/cncy.22047. [Epub ahead of print] and titled:

Cost-effectiveness of rapid onsite evaluation of the adequacy of FNA cytology samples performed by nonpathologists.

Authors of this article are:

Pearson LN, Layfield LJ, Schmidt RL.

A summary of the article is shown below:

BACKGROUND: Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) can increase adequacy and reduce needle passes in fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) procedures. However, ROSE increases the cost of FNAC. Costs may be reduced if ROSE is performed by an alternate evaluator (AE), such as a cytotechnologist (CT), endoscopist, or pulmonologist, rather than a cytopathologist (CP). Studies have shown that AEs can perform ROSE with high accuracy but are generally not as accurate as CPs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of AEs on the cost-effectiveness of ROSE.METHODS: A cost model, based on a mathematical sampling model, was developed. The cost model was used to compare the impact of the evaluator type on overall costs.RESULTS: CTs were likely to be cost-effective for simple procedures and were unlikely to be cost-effective for only the most complex procedures. The model demonstrated the tradeoff in cost savings from using AEs and the potential costs associated with repeated procedures due to the lower accuracy of AEs.CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of AEs is context-dependent. AEs can be cost-effective even if they are less accurate than CPs. AEs are likely to be cost-effective in most contexts.© 2018 American Cancer Society.

Check out the article’s website on Pubmed for more information:



This article is a good source of information and a good way to become familiar with topics such as: cost-effectiveness;fine-needle aspiration biopsy;sensitivity and specificity;theoretical models.

Categories: Science News