Solitary fibrous tumor of the ischioanal fossa—a multidisciplinary approach to management with radiologic-pathologic correlation

Solitary fibrous tumors are primary mesenchymal tumors, which may occur in any part of the body. Overall, these tumors are considered to have intermediate malignant potential with 5- and 10-year metastasis-free and overall disease-specific survival rates of 74% and 55%, and 89% and 73%, respectively (Demicco et al, 2012). Herein we present an unusual case of solitary fibrous tumors involving the ischioanal fossa in a 19-year-old woman with radiologic-pathologic correlation. This case was complicated by extensive tumor vascularity and was thus managed with preoperative embolization followed by en bloc surgical resection. Keywords: Solitary fibrous tumor, Embolization, Ischioanal, Hemangiopericytom

Supplementary Material for: Rapid On-Site Evaluation of Fine-Needle Aspiration by Non-Cytopathologists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies for Adequacy Assessment

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been shown to improve adequacy rates and reduce needle passes. ROSE is often performed by cytopathologists who have limited availability and may be costlier than alternatives. Several recent studies examined the use of alternative evaluators (AEs) for ROSE. A summary of this information could help inform guidelines regarding the use of AEs. The objective was to assess the accuracy of AEs compared to cytopathologists in assessing the adequacy of specimens during ROSE. <b><i>Study Design:</i></b> This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reporting and study quality were assessed using the STARD guidelines and QUADAS-2. All steps were performed independently by two evaluators. Summary estimates were obtained using the hierarchal method in Stata v14. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Higgins’ <i>I</i>² statistic. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The systematic review identified 13 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for AEs were 97% (95% CI: 92–99%) and 83% (95% CI: 68–92%). There was wide variation in accuracy statistics between studies (<i>I</i>² = 0.99). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> AEs sometimes have accuracy that is close to cytopathologists. However, there is wide variability between studies, so it is not possible to provide a broad guideline regarding the use of AEs