PubMed · 12287787
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
N Horibe. 1994. Training: more user friendly.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12287787/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Breast health clinics (BHC) are an unfamiliar source of fine-needle aspiration biopsies (FNABs) in the U.S. and create challenges for adequacy evaluation. The current study described the experience with breast FNAB adequacy evaluation over a 2-year period, the issues that emerged, and the problem-solving employed to mitigate these issues. METHODS: The rate of unsatisfactory FNABs and core biopsies was determined for pathologists, BHC providers, and other clinicians and compared for two different periods. Adequacy criteria during both periods required correlation of the cytologic findings with the clinical and breast imaging findings, and did not require identification of a specific number of ductal epithelial cells. RESULTS: During the first time period, 25% of breast FNABs performed in the BHC received an inadequate evaluation versus 6% performed by pathologists and 14% performed by other clinicians. The BHC adequacy rate exceeded the 20% upper threshold recommended by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and did not decrease after additional FNAB training. During the first time period, 24% of core biopsies received an adequacy evaluation of unsatisfactory. During the second time interval, the core biopsy volume increased and 12% received an unsatisfactory adequacy evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: It is appropriate to use noncellular features such as clinical and imaging findings as adequacy criteria for breast FNABs rather than identification of a minimal number of ductal epithelial cells. However, the 20% upper threshold for unsatisfactory breast FNABs recommended by the NCI was not appropriate for the BHC setting because the nature of the lesions seen in this type of practice can lead to an increase in inadequate specimens and cause unnecessary concern regarding quality. The authors recommended that laboratories receiving a large number of clinician-performed FNABs from a community population, especially a BHC, define their own unsatisfactory threshold above which they will investigate for technical or other problems.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the management of patients with ischemic heart disease being followed up in a general cardiology outpatient clinic with that of patients being followed up in an outpatient clinic specific for ischemic heart disease, emphasizing the lipid profile and the pharmacological treatment prescribed. METHODS: Data were collected from the medical records of 52 patients consecutively treated in the outpatient clinic for ischemic heart disease (group I) and of 43 patients treated in the general cardiology outpatient clinic (group II), the anatomical diagnosis of ischemic heart disease being the basic condition for their inclusion in the study. The criteria for dyslipidemia were as follows: total cholesterol > or = 200 mg/dL or LDL-cholesterol > 100 mg/dL, or both, in patients using or not lipid-lowering drugs, and the use of lipid-lowering drugs, even when the total cholesterol or LDL-cholesterol levels were < 200 mg/dL and 100 mg/dL, respectively, or both. The Fisher exact test was used for comparing the variables, and a 2-tailed p < 0.05 was accepted as significant. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics, risk factors for ischemic heart disease, prevalence of previous myocardial infarction, and previous revascularization procedures showed no significant differences between the patients in groups I and II. In group I, 98% of the patients received aspirin, while, in group II, 83% of the patients received that drug (p = 0.02). In regard to the use of lipid-lowering drugs, the prevalences were 60% in group I and 19% in group II (p = 0.001). The lipid profile examination was requested for 98% of group I individuals and 79% of group II individuals (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In regard to new medical evidence, mainly prescription of aspirin and lipid-lowering drugs, the management was more reliable in the outpatient clinic specifically aimed at treating ischemic heart disease.
It is important to evaluate the effects of proposed interventions to reduce the risk of disease among carriers of a highly penetrant mutation, such as the mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 for breast and ovarian cancers or in APC and MLH1 or MSH2 for colon cancer. However, some studies that evaluate the effects of interventions designed to reduce risk in mutation carriers may be susceptible to a serious selection bias when they are based in clinics that care for persons at high risk for the disease. A study design in which a large fraction of the case patients were diagnosed before being seen at the clinic and all control subjects are persons previously seen at the clinic can create a false impression of intervention efficacy if, as is likely, mutation carriers seen at the clinic were more likely to receive the intervention than mutation carriers in the general population.