Search

Context.— The College of American Pathologists periodically surveys laboratories to determine changes in cytopathology practices. We report the results of a 2016 survey concerning thyroid fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Objective.— To provide a cross-sectional survey of thyroid cytology practices in 2016. Design.— In 2016, a survey was sent to 2013 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists Non-Gynecologic Cytology Education Program (NGC-A) requesting data from 2015–2016 on several topics relating to thyroid FNA. Results.— A total of 878 laboratories (43.6% of 2013) replied to the survey. Radiologists performed the most thyroid FNA procedures in most laboratories (70%; 529 of 756), followed by endocrinologists (18.7%; 141 of 756), and most of these were performed under ultrasound guidance (92.1%; 699 of 759). A total of 32.6% of respondents (251 of 769) provided feedback on unsatisfactory rates for nonpathology providers who performed FNA. Intraprocedural adequacy assessment was primarily performed by attending pathologists (77.4%; 490 of 633) or cytotechnologists (28.4%; 180 of 633). Most laboratories used the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (89.8%; 701 of 781) and performed molecular testing based on clinician request (68.1%; 184 of 270) rather than FNA diagnosis. Correlation of thyroid excisions with prior cytology results most often occurred retrospectively (38.4%; 283 of 737) and was used for pathologist interpretive quality assurance purposes. Conclusions.— These survey results offer a snapshot of national thyroid FNA cytology practices in 2016 and indicate that standardized cytology terminology is commonly used; pathologists perform most immediate adequacy assessments for thyroid FNA; laboratories use correlation statistics to evaluate pathologists' performance; and molecular tests are increasingly requested for indeterminate interpretations, but reflex molecular testing is rare.

Context.— The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) established a new system for accreditation of residency and fellowship programs in 2013. One key aspect of the Next Accreditation System is the 10-year self-study, which requires programs to conduct a comprehensive self-evaluation, including development of program aims and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, and environmental context, in order to plan improvements and take the program to the next level. Objective.— To provide a review of the recent changes and current state of ACGME accreditation, with a focus on the new 10-year self-study, and to share our institution's experience with conducting the first self-study of our pathology residency and accredited fellowship programs in 2018. Data Sources.— Review of English-language literature, published resources from the ACGME, and materials/data from our department's 2018 self-study. Conclusions.— The self-study process now required for ACGME accreditation is a useful way to assess program strengths and weaknesses in the context of current environmental and institutional factors, and helps develop an effective framework for improvements geared at achieving program aims and taking the program to the next level. Additionally, conducting residency and fellowship self-studies together allows for collaboration, effective use of shared resources, and the development of a cohesive educational mission.

Context.—The incidence of anal cancer in the United States is on the rise in high-risk populations. The anal Papanicolaou test (APT) is advocated as a screening tool, in addition to digital rectal examination and high-resolution anoscopy.Objective.—To review our experience and the current literature to create, in cooperation with clinicians, a standardized screening and treatment algorithm given our large volume of APTs.Data Sources.—All APTs collected between January 2013 and June 2015 were reviewed and correlated with follow-up/concurrent biopsy diagnoses, and clinical and social history. In total, 1417 APTs were performed on 1185 patients and APT results were as follows: 17.4% (247 of 1417) unsatisfactory; 27.9% (395 of 1417) negative; 19.5% (276 of 1417) atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US); 24.1% (342 of 1417) low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); 3.6% (51 of 1417) atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (ASC-H); and 7.5% (106 of 1417) HSIL. In total 376 cases (26.5%) had concurrent/follow-up biopsy. Review of all unsatisfactory cases with squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) on biopsy showed LSIL in 19.2% (5 of 26). Anal Papanicolaou test with cytologic abnormality (ASC-US+) had an 83.8% (315 of 376) rate of biopsy-proven disease, and sensitivity was higher (92%) for high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (AIN2+). Overall detection of AIN2+ using ASC-US+ showed specificity of 26%, negative predictive value of 92%, and positive predictive value of 26%.Conclusions.—Anal cytology has a high abnormal rate (54.7%) and sensitivity but poor correlation with histologic grade. High unsatisfactory rate indicates need for improvement in sampling with 68.4% of cases having SIL on biopsy. Multidisciplinary effort led to improvements in sampling, cytologic interpretation, and development of a standardized management algorithm.

Context The College of American Pathologists periodically surveys laboratories to determine changes in cytopathology practices. We report the results of a 2011 gynecologic cytology survey. Objective To provide a cross-sectional survey of gynecologic cytology practices in 2010. Design In 2011, a survey was sent to 1604 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists gynecologic cytology interlaboratory comparison education program and proficiency testing programs requesting data from 2010 on the following topics: terminology/reporting, cytotechnologist workload, quality assurance, reagents, and ancillary testing. Results Six hundred and twenty-five laboratories (39%) replied to the survey. The nonstandard use of “low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion” is used by most laboratories to report the presence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with possibility of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Most laboratories also report the presence or absence of cells from the transformation zone. Most respondents do not limit cytotechnologist screening workload during the work shift. Only about one-third of laboratories (188 of 582; 32%) use image-assisted screening devices. Rapid prescreening as a quality assurance measure is used by only 3.5% (21 of 594) of the laboratories. When used for screening, most laboratories use the imager for retrospective review of slides to detect human locator and interpretive errors. Most laboratories receive both liquid-based cytology samples (mainly ThinPrep, Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) and conventional Papanicolaou tests. Expiration dates of liquid-based cytology test vials are not usually recorded. Conclusions The field of gynecologic cytology is evolving rapidly. These survey results offer a snapshot of national gynecologic cytology practices in 2010.

Context.—Knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) status is expected to bias the morphologic evaluation of Papanicolaou (Pap) test results.Objective.—To characterize Pap test result interpretive bias when the HPV status is known at the microscopic evaluation.Design.—Forty HPV-positive liquid-based Pap test results initially interpreted as negative for squamous intraepithelial lesion or malignancy were selected from a quality assurance program, separated into 2 groups of 20 slides each, and circulated in 2 groups to 22 members of the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee. Each member reviewed each case and indicated whether the result was negative for squamous intraepithelial lesion or malignancy or was an epithelial cell abnormality (ECA). The participants assessed the severity of ECAs using the Bethesda System. The participants were not informed of the HPV status in the initial review round. Each group of 20 slides was then distributed to the opposite group (to avoid slide recall), and the participants were informed that all slides were from patients who were high-risk HPV positive. Differences in the responses between groups were analyzed by χ2 test and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test at the .05 significance level.Results.—Without knowledge of the HPV status, slides were more often categorized as negative for squamous intraepithelial lesion or malignancy and less likely identified as an ECA (P < .001). There was an increase across all categories of ECAs in the biased responses compared with the unbiased responses (P = .002).Conclusions.—Knowledge of positive HPV status biases morphologic Pap test result interpretation. If the HPV status is positive, observers are more likely to report a Pap test result as abnormal across all categories of ECAs.

Although information about the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (TBSRTC) has been widely disseminated since its inception in 2007, the extent of its implementation and impact on daily practice has not been formally evaluated.To assess the extent of uptake of TBSRTC across pathology laboratories and to evaluate its impact on daily practice by collating participant responses to the 2011 supplemental thyroid questionnaire of the College of American Pathologists.A questionnaire was designed to gather information about various aspects of TBSRTC and mailed in June 2011 to 2063 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists cytopathology interlaboratory comparison program. The participating laboratories' answers were collated and summarized.Seven hundred and seventy-seven laboratories (37.6%) returned the survey. Although 60.9% (n = 451) and 17.1% (n = 127) of laboratories reported using TBSRTC or planning to use it in the near future, respectively, 22% (n = 163) had no plans to implement TBSRTC. Of the latter, 32% (n = 70) stated that they were unaware of this classification system. The majority (78.3%, n = 343) of the laboratories used TBSRTC as published in the Thyroid Bethesda System atlas, whereas 21.7% (n = 95) used it with minor modifications. Most reported that the use of TBSRTC had caused either no change (n = 67, 15.2%) or only minor changes (n = 353, 80.2%) in the terminology and diagnostic criteria previously used in their laboratories.According to the collected data, TBSRTC is generally well implemented in pathology laboratories. However, because approximately a third of those not using this terminology are not aware of it, additional educational efforts regarding TBSRTC are warranted.

Follicular cervicitis is usually easily identifiable on Papanicolaou (Pap) tests; however, historically, follicular cervicitis is reported to lead to false-positive diagnoses of epithelial cell abnormalities.To assess participant responses in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Pap educational program (CAP-PAP) to determine the accuracy and false-positive rate of follicular cervicitis cases. Design.-We performed a retrospective review of 4914 participant responses for gynecologic cytology challenges with the reference diagnosis of follicular cervicitis during 11 years (2000-2010) from CAP-PAP. Reference diagnosis category, false-positive rates by participant type (laboratory, cytotechnologist, pathologist), and preparation type (conventional smears, ThinPrep) were analyzed.Of the total 4914 general category responses, 4368 (88.9%) were benign while 546 (11.1%) responses were epithelial cell abnormalities (false positives). Of benign responses, only 2026 (46.4%) were an exact match to follicular cervicitis. Adenocarcinoma and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion were the most common diagnoses chosen as a false-positive interpretation (42.3% and 20.1%, respectively). Participant type was significantly associated with false-positive interpretations (laboratory: 19.2%; cytotechnologist: 11.1%; pathologist: 7.9%; P.001). ThinPrep was also significantly associated with false-positive results as compared to conventional smears (12.2% versus 3.6%; P.001).In an interlaboratory comparison educational program, follicular cervicitis is difficult to interpret accurately and represents an important cause of false-positive responses. Follicular cervicitis may mimic adenocarcinoma or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, particularly in liquid-based preparations. The diagnostic difficulty most likely arises from the lymphocytes being less conspicuous in the background as well as their tendency to aggregate in ThinPrep as compared to conventional smears.

Context.—There are many long-standing quality monitors for cytopathology laboratories and their cytotechnologists and pathologists. Many of these monitors are based on tradition and empirical good intentions. There is no established standard as to how results of these monitors should be used in a quality assurance program.Objective.—To review practices that are typically part of a general quality program in cytopathology laboratories and to provide statements regarding good laboratory practices that laboratories may find useful in a quality assurance program in their own setting.Data Sources.—An expert working group evaluated results from a national laboratory survey, responses from follow-up questions posted on a Web site, and findings from the literature. The group created statements on good laboratory practices related to general quality practices and quality assurance in gynecologic cytopathology. These were discussed and voted on at a consensus conference.Conclusions.—Laboratories follow many metrics. Most laboratories facilitate comparison of individual metrics against the laboratory's metrics: 81.1% for cytotechnologists and 59.6% for pathologists. The majority of laboratories facilitate comparison of individual cytotechnologist metrics with other cytotechnologists, but less frequently metrics from pathologists with other individuals. The most common methods to recognize variance in performance in individuals were by identifying outliers from the data or by user-defined action limits. The most common method to address variance was an attempt to identify the cause of the variance and conduct a focused review. Quality metrics should be monitored for the laboratory as a whole and in selected cases for both individual pathologists and cytotechnologists. Results should be shared with individuals, and newly hired primary screeners should be monitored. Reviewing selected cases is a useful quality tool. Low-volume methodologies, such as conventional Papanicolaou tests, should have additional oversight.