Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Training and practice of cytotechnologists: A discussion forum focused on Europe

  • A. Herbert
  • , V. Anic
  • , B. Cochand-Priollet
  • , R. Dina
  • , H. Ehya
  • , M. L. Eide
  • , M. Fabre
  • , A. Field
  • , K. Kapila
  • , I. Kardum-Skelin
  • , M. H. Oliveira
  • , W. Olszewski
  • , B. Önal
  • , M. Nasioutziki
  • , R. Nayar
  • , K. Nielsen
  • , I. Shabalova
  • , F. Schmitt
  • , M. Tötsch
  • , A. Wilson
  • L. Vass, P. Zeppa
  • King's College London
  • Department of Clinical Cytology and Cytogenetics, Merkur University Hospital and School of Medicine, University of Zagreb
  • Université Paris Cité
  • Hammersmith Hospital
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  • Department of Pathology, Gustave Roussy, Cancer Campus Grand Paris
  • St Vincent’s Hospital
  • Kuwait University
  • Hospital Beatriz Angelo
  • Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute of Oncology
  • Ankara Diskapi Teaching and Research Hospital
  • Hippokration General Hospital
  • Northwestern University
  • Aarhus University
  • Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education
  • University of Porto
  • University of Toronto
  • University Hospital of Graz
  • NHS Lanarkshire
  • University Hospital of Pest County
  • University of Salerno

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: To discuss the role and training of cytotechnologists (CTs) in Europe, to identify areas of good practice and to provide an informed opinion to those providing guidelines for training and practice in Europe. Methods: All members of the Editorial Advisory Board of Cytopathology were invited to take part in a 'discussion forum' for which six topics were circulated in advance concerning the roles of CTs with regard to: (1) pre-screening slides; (2) 'signing out' reports; (3) carrying out ancillary techniques; (4) supervising laboratory staff; (5) taking part in rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of fine needle aspirates (FNAs); and (6) whether CTs were trained specifically in cytopathology or in general histopathology. Notes of the meeting were circulated by email and a final report was agreed by 22 participants from 17 predominantly European countries. Results: Training for CTs throughout Europe was variable, especially for non-gynaecological cytology, which was inconsistent with the range of activities required. The participants recommended graduate entry, preliminary training in general laboratory technology, and subsequent training to take account of the probability and, in some centres, the reality of primary cervical cancer screening changing from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. They further recommended that CTs should perform HPV tests and take part in ROSE for FNAs, and they supported the European Federation of Cytology Societies developing guidelines for training and practice. Conclusion: With CT training added to a university-based education in laboratory or biomedical science, a career in cytotechnology should be an attractive option involving a diverse range of laboratory and clinically based activities.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)307-315
Number of pages9
JournalCytopathology
Volume25
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Keywords

  • Ancillary tests
  • Cervical cytology
  • Cytopathology
  • Cytotechnologists
  • Guidelines
  • Training

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Training and practice of cytotechnologists: A discussion forum focused on Europe'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this