Library
PubMed Central Open Access
research article
Professional
Open access

Multisite sampling improves consensus cytologic interpretation in bone marrow evaluation of dogs

Source: PubMed Central Open Access, NCBI / U.S. National Library of Medicine

Journal of Veterinary Internal MedicineLast synced 6/29/2026Status: syncedPMID: 42364140 pmidDOI: 10.1093/jvimsj/aalag121

Abstract Background Bone marrow (BM) evaluation is essential for diagnosing hematologic abnormalities in dogs. Standard practice often involves single-site sampling, despite some evidence suggesting that focal BM lesions may occur. We assessed the probability of obtaining an unrepresentative cytologic interpretation when BM cytology interpretation depends on a single site vs multiple sites. sec1a Hypothesis/Objectives Single-site BM sampling increases the probability of unrepresentative cytologic interpretation in dogs. sec1b Animals Sixteen client-owned dogs with hematologic disease requiring BM sampling were prospectively enrolled. sec1c Methods Randomized, masked clinical trial. We collected 4 BM aspirates per dog: right and left proximal humeri and iliac crests. Interpretative concordance was assessed by comparing individual site interpretations with a composite multisite interpretation. The primary outcome was the probability of a truth-consistent interpretation based on the number of sites sampled (= 1-4) under 3 evaluation rules, accounting for inter-clinical pathologist agreement. sec1d Results Single-site sampling yielded a truth-consistent interpretation in only 50.0%-81.7% of cases, depending on diagnostic stringency. Evaluating 2 sites significantly improved the probability of a truth-consistent interpretation by 17.2%-23.3% (< .002). Additional sites (2 or 4) offered only marginal further benefit. Inter-clinical pathologist agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.574).

Abstract

Abstract Background Bone marrow (BM) evaluation is essential for diagnosing hematologic abnormalities in dogs. Standard practice often involves single-site sampling, despite some evidence suggesting that focal BM lesions may occur. We assessed the probability of obtaining an unrepresentative cytologic interpretation when BM cytology interpretation depends on a single site vs multiple sites. sec1a Hypothesis/Objectives Single-site BM sampling increases the probability of unrepresentative cytologic interpretation in dogs. sec1b Animals Sixteen client-owned dogs with hematologic disease requiring BM sampling were prospectively enrolled. sec1c Methods Randomized, masked clinical trial. We collected 4 BM aspirates per dog: right and left proximal humeri and iliac crests. Interpretative concordance was assessed by comparing individual site interpretations with a composite multisite interpretation. The primary outcome was the probability of a truth-consistent interpretation based on the number of sites sampled (= 1-4) under 3 evaluation rules, accounting for inter-clinical pathologist agreement. sec1d Results Single-site sampling yielded a truth-consistent interpretation in only 50.0%-81.7% of cases, depending on diagnostic stringency. Evaluating 2 sites significantly improved the probability of a truth-consistent interpretation by 17.2%-23.3% (< .002). Additional sites (2 or 4) offered only marginal further benefit. Inter-clinical pathologist agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.574). No single anatomical site provided superior diagnostic yield for overall interpretation. sec1e Conclusions and clinical importance A single BM sampling site carries a higher probability of unrepresentative cytologic interpretation in dogs. Two-site sampling significantly improves recovery of a truth-consistent interpretation, providing a more reliable assessment for hematologic disease in dogs. This approach accounts for potential focal disease distribution, improving diagnostic confidence. sec1f

Educational only
This information is for general education and is not medical advice. Always talk to a licensed U.S. clinician about your situation, medications, or treatment decisions.