Tworek, Joseph A.

Context.— The classification and prognosis determination in acute leukemia (AL) are complex and it is unclear what testing is being performed in practice. Objective.— To survey physicians describing their current practice of test ordering in the diagnosis of AL. Design.— In anticipation of a guideline by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society for Hematology on laboratory testing needed for the initial workup of AL, a baseline survey was designed by an expert panel from CAP. Members of professional societies were asked to describe their current practice of test ordering. Results.— Two hundred ninety-four responses were received with 258 respondents analyzed after the first qualifying survey question regarding initial diagnosis of AL. One hundred seventy-six of 249 respondents (70.7%) were board-certified hematopathologists. Flow cytometry and karyotype analysis were routinely performed for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (99.1% [232 of 234] and 96.2% [225 of 234], respectively) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (98.3% [229 of 233] and 96.6% [225 of 233], respectively). In addition, fluorescence in situ hybridization studies were routinely performed by 81.2% (190 of 234) of respondents for AML and 85.0% (198 of 233) of respondents for ALL; other molecular studies were performed by 78.2% (183) for AML and 54.9% (128) for ALL; immunohistochemistry by 44.9% (105) for AML and 47.6% (111) for ALL; and cytochemistry by 24.8% (58) for AML and 14.2% (33) for ALL. Conclusions.— While flow cytometry and karyotyping are routinely reported as being performed for the diagnosis of AL, there is marked variation in the reporting of testing patterns for other genetic studies, immunohistochemistry, and cytochemistry.

Context.— Gynecologic cytopathology is a heavily regulated field, with Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 mandating the collection of many quality metrics. There is a lack of consensus regarding methods to collect, monitor, and benchmark these data and how these data should be used in a quality assurance program. Furthermore, the introduction of human papilloma virus testing and proficiency testing has provided more data to monitor. Objective.— To determine good laboratory practices in quality assurance of gynecologic cytopathology. Data Sources.— Data were collected through a written survey consisting of 98 questions submitted to 1245 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–licensed or Department of Defense laboratories. There were 541 usable responses. Additional input was sought through a Web posting of results and questions on the College of American Pathologists Web site. Four senior authors who authored the survey and 28 cytopathologists and cytotechnologists were assigned to 5 working groups to analyze data and present statements on good laboratory practices in gynecologic cytopathology at the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference. Ninety-eight attendees at the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference discussed and voted on good laboratory practice statements to obtain consensus. Conclusions.— This paper describes the rationale, background, process, and strengths and limitations of a series of papers that summarize good laboratory practice statements in quality assurance in gynecologic cytopathology.