Witt, Benjamin L.

Context.— Cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC) is a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–mandated requirement for gynecologic cytology, but no similar requirement exists for nongynecologic cytology. This study presents the findings from a College of American Pathologists survey of nongynecologic cytology practice patterns. Objective.— To survey the current CHC practices for nongynecologic cytology. Design.— Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the committee and distributed to participants in the Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing. Results.— Adoption of CHC for nongynecologic cytology cases is worldwide, with 88.5% of institutions performing CHC on these specimens, a substantial increase from previous years. Performance of CHC varied by institution type, with clinic or regional/local independent laboratories and national/corporate laboratories performing CHC significantly less frequently than hospitals, university hospitals/academic medical centers, and Veterans Administration/Department of Defense hospital institutions. Most CHC was performed concurrently in real time, when the corresponding surgical specimen was reviewed. Selection for real-time concurrent CHC was by the interpreting pathologist, the pathologist diagnosing the surgical biopsy sample or cytopathology case, or both. Sampling was by far the most common reason for discordance. A 2-step difference was the most frequent threshold for discordance between cytology and surgical specimens, but this criterion varied among institutions, with no majority definition. The positive predictive value of a positive cytology finding was calculated rarely in North American institutions but was calculated more frequently in international institutions. Conclusions.— CHC practices for nongynecologic cytopathology mirror those found for CHC of gynecologic cytopathology.

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has limitations of inadequate sampling and false-negative results for malignancy. It has been performed using conventional smear (CS) cytology with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with reasonable diagnostic accuracy. An alternative to ROSE is liquid-based cytology (LBC). Commonly used LBC techniques include precipitation-based (SurePath™) and filtration-based (ThinPrep®, CellPrep®). Data regarding the diagnostic efficacy of LBC compared with CS are limited. Methods Multiple databases were searched through March 2020 to identify studies reporting diagnostic yield of EUS-guided CS and LBC in pancreatic lesions. Pooled diagnostic odds and rates of performance for the cytologic diagnoses of benign, suspicious, and malignant lesions were calculated. Diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by pooled rates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Results Nine studies with a total of 1308 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled diagnostic odds of CS cytology were 1.69 (CI 1.02–2.79) and 0.39 (CI 0.19–0.8) for malignant lesions when compared to filtration-based and precipitation-based LBC techniques, respectively. For CS, precipitation-based and filtration-based LBC, pooled diagnostic accuracy was 79.7 %, 85.2 %, 77.3 %, sensitivity was 79.2 %, 83.6 %, 68.3 %, and specificity was 99.4 %, 99.5 %, 99.5 %, respectively. Conclusions The precipitation-based LBC technique (SurePath™) had superior diagnostic odds for malignant pancreatic lesions compared with CS cytology in the absence of ROSE. It showed superior accuracy and sensitivity, but comparable specificity and PPV. Diagnostic odds of CS cytology in the absence of ROSE were superior to the filtration-based LBC technique (ThinPrep®, Cellprep®) for diagnosing malignant pancreatic lesions.