Search

The use of human papillomavirus DNA testing plus Papanicolaou (Pap) testing (cotesting) for cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older has been recommended since 2006. However, few studies have detailed the adoption of such cotesting in clinical practice. We examined the trends in monthly percentage of Pap tests ordered as cotests in our laboratory over a 2.5-year period and used joinpoint regression to identify periods in which there was a change in the average monthly proportion of cotests. Cotesting of patients 30 years and older increased from 15.9% in January 2008 to 39.4% in June 2010. In patients aged 18 to 29 years, cotesting initially increased, but showed a downward trend in the last 14 months of the study, ending at 7.7% in June 2010. Our study highlights increased adoption of age-appropriate cotesting as well as the persistence of age-inappropriate cotesting.

Recent increases in the number of thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNAs) biopsies and the popularity of on-site evaluation for adequacy (OSEA) have led many practices, including ours, to rely on cytotechnologists for performing OSEA. We retrospectively analyzed the accuracy of a cytotechnologist against that of a cytopathologist in performing OSEA and making the final diagnosis. Of 2,261 thyroid FNA specimens evaluated over a 33-month period under ultrasound guidance with OSEA, the cytotechnologist attended 64.7% (1,462/2,261) of the procedures whereas the cytopathologist attended 35.3% (799/2,261). There was no difference in the adequacy downgrade rate for cytotechnologists compared with that for cytopathologists during this study period (4.1% vs 5.0% downgrade rate, P = .33). Regardless of who rendered the OSEA, subadequate specimens had a higher rate of indeterminate diagnosis (25.2%) than those specimens deemed adequate at the time of OSEA (11.9%, P = .00001). These results indicate that the accuracy of cytotechnologists is comparable with that of cytopathologists in conducting OSEA of the thyroid.

Numerous methods exist for monitoring residual disease in multiple myeloma using peripheral blood, urine, and bone marrow (BM) techniques. This study was conducted in a cohort of 83 patients to compare residual disease detection using serum protein electrophoresis (SPE) and urine protein electrophoresis (UPE) with immunofixation with immunoperoxidase staining of BM tissue sections. Of the 83 patients, 49 had a positive SPE and/or UPE result and all had BM involvement shown by immunohistochemical analysis. The results for SPE and UPE were negative in 17 patients, and all 17 had a negative immunohistochemical BM result for a negative predictive value for SPE/UPE of 100%. In addition, SPE and UPE detected residual disease in 17 patients with negative BM biopsy studies. SPE and UPE can be used to screen patients for residual disease, and negative results for both can obviate the need for BM biopsy for the detection of residual disease by immunohistochemical analysis.