Tench, William D.

Abstract Context.—Minimum cellular criteria for satisfactory Papanicolaou tests were established with the Bethesda System in 2001, and unsatisfactory rates are used as a quality-reporting measure. Objective.—To evaluate practices and unsatisfactory rates from laboratories responding to the 2007 College of American Pathologists supplemental questionnaire survey. Design.—In 2007, a supplemental questionnaire was mailed to 1621 laboratories enrolled in the 2006 College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Gynecologic Cytology (PAP Education), requesting data from the 2006 calendar year. Unsatisfactory rates, reasons for unsatisfactory specimens, laboratory size, and specimen preparation type were analyzed. Results.—A total of 42% of the laboratories responded to the survey. Most of those laboratories (637 of 674; 94.5%) used the Bethesda System minimum cellularity criteria. Of those laboratories responding, 79% (527 of 667) used the Bethesda System criteria for atrophic or postirradiation specimens. Unsatisfactory rates have increased since 1996. SurePath preparations were associated with the lowest unsatisfactory rate (50th percentile, 0.30; 95th percentile, 1.3), conventional Papanicolaou tests had the highest 95th percentile rates (50th percentile, 1.0; 95th percentile, 5.90), and ThinPrep specimens had the highest median percentile (50th percentile, 1.1; 95th percentile, 3.4). The most-common reason for unsatisfactory Papanicolaou tests was too few squamous cells. Air-drying artifact was the least-common reason for unsatisfactory reporting for liquid-based preparations. Conclusions.—Use of the Bethesda System criteria for unsatisfactory specimens is widespread. Unsatisfactory rates have increased since 1996; however, the median rates are 1.1% or less for all preparations. Results from the College of American Pathologists PAP Education supplemental questionnaire continue to provide valuable benchmarking data for cytologic quality-improvement programs in laboratories.

Abstract Context. —Gynecologic cytology terminology and report formatting have been nationally standardized since the implementation of The Bethesda System of 1988, but standard reporting for nongynecologic cytology has never been formally addressed on the same scale. Objectives. —To promote patient safety through uniform reporting in nongynecologic cytology (including fine-needle aspiration cytology) and to improve communication between laboratories and health care providers. Data Sources. —Sources include the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Resource Committee; the College of American Pathologists Council on Scientific Affairs Ad Hoc Committee on Pathology Report Standardization; the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program inspection checklists; the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. Conclusions. —We describe the major elements of quality nongynecologic cytology reporting and discuss areas of controversy in cytology reporting. Standardized nongynecologic specimen reporting will expand the concept of common report elements already widely implemented in gynecologic cytology reporting. The intent is to improve communication with the health care team while remaining in compliance with federal mandates and accreditation guidelines.