Sundling, Kaitlin E.

Context.— Ensuring equitable laboratory patient care within diverse populations is a priority. The cytopathology laboratory has an important role in providing gender-inclusive care, particularly with regard to screening and prevention of human papillomavirus–related carcinoma, for individuals who are transgender, gender nonbinary, intersex, and with same-gender sexual orientation. Providing equitable care necessitates an understanding of gender-inclusive processes within the cytopathology laboratory. Many barriers to implementation exist and include sociocultural, legal, ethical, and financial hurdles. Objective.— To review the current literature regarding gender-inclusive care within a multi-institutional setting and identify challenges and opportunities for future growth in cytopathology. Specific areas of focus include appropriate terminology in laboratory information systems and requisitions, and variables affecting Papanicolaou test interpretation, human papillomavirus testing, and anal Papanicolaou test screening. Data Sources.— Primary literature was searched within the areas highlighted throughout the article. Multi-institutional experiences from the authors, in addition to editorials and expert opinion, were used. Conclusions.— The cytopathology laboratory has an important role in providing care that is inclusive and accurate for all patients. Gaps in care exist and further work is needed to address these disparities. This review attempts to increase awareness, educate, and share our own multi-institutional experiences, and calls for improvements in cytopathology to optimize quality in gender-inclusive patient care.

Context.— Unsatisfactory Papanicolaou (Pap) tests pose a unique set of challenges to the laboratory with regard to their processing, review, reporting, and performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. There are no standardized guidelines for the review process and handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests. Objective.— To assess the current practice patterns regarding various aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test, from processing to reporting, across laboratories worldwide. Design.— A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program, requesting data regarding the unsatisfactory Pap test. Results.— Of 1520 participating laboratories, 619 (40.7%) responded, and the responses of 577 laboratories were included for further analysis. Only 64.6% (373 of 577) laboratories used the unsatisfactory Pap test criteria as specified by the 2014 Bethesda System. About three-quarters of the respondents (433 of 576; 75.2%) routinely rescreened unsatisfactory Pap tests. Routine repreparation of such Pap tests was performed by 54.9% (316 of 576) of laboratories, and 52.0% (293 of 563) used glacial acetic acid for repreparing excessively bloody specimens. HPV test results were reported for unsatisfactory Pap tests, always or sometimes, by 62.4% (353 of 566) of respondents. Conclusions.— This CAP survey reveals important information regarding the practice patterns pertaining to several aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test. It also provides valuable insight into the quality assurance measures that can be implemented for such tests. Future studies can further aid in the standardization of all components of the handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests for overall quality improvement.