Citations

Context.— The diagnosis and characterization of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WDNETs) on cytology is challenging, with recognized pitfalls that may have therapeutic and prognostic implications. Objective.— To analyze data curated by the College of American Pathologists educational slide program for accuracy in the cytologic diagnosis of WDNET. The current state of cytologic diagnosis of WDNET is also reviewed for educational purposes. Design.— The study cohort included non-gynecologic cytology slides reviewed by participants in the College of American Pathologists Non-Gynecologic Cytopathology Education program. Individual responses for cytotechnologists or cytologists (CT) and pathologists were collated for WDNET. The data were analyzed for concordance with the correct general diagnosis and concordance with the correct reference diagnosis. The exact reference diagnosis available for each site was “pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor,” “liver, well/moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumor,” and “lung, well/moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumor.” Performance measures were assessed. Results.— The WDNET analysis includes 8941 responses from 1382 laboratories. The selection of the general diagnosis of “malignant” or “suspicious for malignancy” was greater than 90% in all body sites. Pathologists correctly identifying WDNET was highest in the pancreas (2501/2738, 91.3%) compared with the lung (805/1019, 79.0%) and liver (1444/1966, 73.4%). Pathologists had better concordance with the diagnosis of WDNET in all sites than CTs ( P < .001). Conclusions.— This large study, encompassing pathologists and CTs, confirms that although participants can identify WDNET on cytology, opportunities for greater accuracy and education persist. The most common incorrect response in the pancreas was adenocarcinoma, while the most common misdiagnosis was small cell carcinoma in the lung and liver.

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.— 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.— 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.

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.