Goyal, Abha

Context.— Though numerous quality assurance (QA) measures are in place for the practice of gynecologic cytopathology, many of them are not clearly defined and may be variably used by laboratories worldwide. Objective.— To assess current practice patterns regarding the implementation of selected gynecologic cytology QA metrics to help develop guidance for laboratories. Design.— A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program requesting data regarding their QA measures in gynecologic cytology. Results.— A total of 562 laboratories responded to the supplemental questionnaire; responses from 511 laboratories were analyzed further. Of 492 laboratories, most considered Papanicolaou (Pap) tests from patients with untreated abnormal cytology in the previous year (386; 78.5%) or with an abnormal gynecologic biopsy finding (concurrent or within the past year) (331; 67.3%) as high-risk for negative rescreening. Many laboratories (436 of 511; 85.3%) required pathologist review of Pap tests for indications other than reactive/abnormal cells (eg, endometrial cells in women 45 years of age and older). For assessing cytologists’ performance, 88.5% (399 of 451) of respondents recorded the discrepancy rate between cytologist’s and pathologist’s interpretations. For monitoring pathologists’ performance, most laboratories (243 of 389; 62.5%) evaluated cases with significant cytologic-histologic discrepancy. Conclusions.— The CAP survey provided a detailed assessment of current QA practices regarding gynecologic cytology, which can aid laboratories in making decisions related to enhancement of QA in their setting. As the guidelines and tools for cervical cancer screening evolve, QA metrics will need to be accordingly refined.

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.