THE NEED FOR RAPID ON-SITE EVALUATION

1 in every 5 needle biopsies fails to collect a sufficient sample to make a diagnosis. Large medical facilities have been forced to staff pathologists during routine biopsy procedures – leaving small and rural facilities unable to implement this practice, known as Rapid Onsite Evaluation (ROSE). In response to these issues, we have developed the Bioptic™ platform to automate ROSE and enable hospitals of every size to mitigate both the failure rate and time spent on this costly procedure.

 
 

Patients

On average, 20-25% of biopsies are inadequate for diagnosis due to a lack of on-site quality checks1. Patients are frequently readmitted for FNA biopsies, enduring weeks of intermediary stress and creating $3.6B in annual losses.

Pathologists

Average pathologist earning potential is $638 per hour2. While performing rapid on-site evaluation, pathologists bill at $88 per hour – 14% of what could be made in within the same amount of time.

Hospitals

There are 2.7MM fine needle aspirate biopsies performed each year, direct costs of which frequently exceed $3,000 per procedure. The aggregate cost of duplicate surgeries amounts to $1.6B burdening US hospitals annually3.

Insurance

Of thyroid surgeries (e.g., thyroidectomy) following an indeterminate biopsy, 92% are later found to be unnecessary; at $11,000 per surgery, this renders $165M lost by insurance providers on an annual basis.

 

 
  1. Griffin, Adrienne Carruth, Lauren Ende Schwartz, and Zubair W. Baloch. "Utility of on-site evaluation of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens." Cytojournal 8 (2011).
  2. Layfield, Lester J., Joel S. Bentz, and Evelyn V. Gopez. "Immediate on‐site interpretation of fine‐needle aspiration smears: a cost and compensation analysis." Cancer Cytopathology: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society 93, no. 5 (2001): 319-322.
  3. VanderLaan, Paul A. "Fine‐needle aspiration and core needle biopsy: An update on 2 common minimally invasive tissue sampling modalities." Cancer Cytopathology 124, no. 12 (2016): 862-870.