Search

Introduction The American Board of Pathology (ABPath) has ongoing efforts to better align certification with graduate medical education, training program requirements, and pathology practice. The present study focused on the subspecialty of cytopathology. We evaluated the current content and scope of fellowship programs, practice patterns and needs of diplomates, and program director (PD) and diplomate perceptions of the ABPath certification examination to identify gaps and provide an evidence base to guide harmonization in these areas. Methods Two surveys were administered: one directed to PDs of all 93 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) cytopathology fellowship programs and the other to cytopathology diplomates submitting continuing certification reporting to the ABPath. Results Most (86%) cytopathology diplomates work in smaller groups. Only 11% do >50% cytopathology in practice. Diplomates’ cytopathology-related practice tasks varied, as did their perception of the content of fellowship training aligning with practice needs. In fellowship training programs, the specimen types, volumes, techniques of specimen acquisition, and graduated responsibility varied significantly. We identified areas in which current training and certification requirements are challenging for some programs. Diplomates and PDs had differing perceptions of the cytopathology examination; diplomates regarded image-based and microscopic glass slide questions as the best assessment of their knowledge. Conclusions First, fellowship training programs could benefit from shared resources and should provide more graduated responsibility for fellows. Second, the ACGME Review Committee could consider this data in future program requirement revisions. Finally, information from these surveys will be useful as the ABPath adjusts certification examination content and delivery.

Background Primary stakeholders in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones Project are: ACGME, Residency Programs, Residents, Fellowship Programs, Fellows, and Certification Boards. The intent of the Milestones is to describe the educational and professional developmental trajectory of a trainee from the first stages of their postgraduate education through the completion of their clinical training. The Milestones 2.0 project includes changes made based on experience with Milestones 1.0. Methods The ACGME solicited volunteers to participate in the development of subspecialty Milestones 2.0. The workgroup was charged with reviewing/making any additions to the four “Harmonized Milestones”, developing subspecialty specific milestones for the Patient Care and Medical Knowledge competencies, and creating a supplemental guide. The Milestones were finalized following review of input from an open comment period. Results The Cytopathology Milestones 2.0 will go into effect July 2021. They include additional subcompetencies in the 4 harmonized competency areas and cytopathology-specific edits to the patient care and medical knowledge subcompetencies. Although the number of subcompetencies has increased from 18 to 21, within each subcompetency, the number of milestone trajectories has decreased. Additionally, within each subcompetency, the wording has been streamlined. A supplemental guide was created and Milestones 1.0 were compared to 2.0; however, curriculum mapping has been left to programs to develop. Conclusions The ultimate goal of the Cytopathology Milestones 2.0 is to provide better real-time documentation of the progress of cytopathology fellows. The expected outcome is to produce highly competent cytopathologists, improving the care they provide, regardless of the program at which they trained.

Introduction Cytopathology (CYP) fellowship training is a critical component of maintaining a skilled group of cytopathologists. For years, the recruitment process for CYP fellowship programs has remained unchanged, with individual programs outlining their own requirements and timeline, and applicants bearing the cost of travel and dealing with the variable processes outlined by individual programs. However, there has been renewed interest in analyzing the recruitment process for CYP fellowships to look for areas of potential improvement and uniformity. Methods With the goal of gauging the interest of CYP fellowship program directors (PDs) in a more unified approach to recruitment or a formal match process, the ASC Cytopathology Program Directors Committee (CPDC) surveyed PDs via SurveyMonkey and organized special webinars with polling over a 4-year time frame (2017-2021), and examined Qualtrics survey data collected by the American Board of Pathology (ABPath) in 2020. Results The response rate for PDs was greatest in a formal survey by the ABPath (66 respondents; 71% of PDs) conducted in 2020, and lower for an ASC survey in 2021 (61 respondents, 66% of PDs) and 2017 (19 respondents; 21% of PDs) and two recent ASC webinars (10 and 26 respondents; 11% and 28% of PDs). Support for a fellowship match process varied from 29% to 77%, respondent uncertainty ranged from 13% to 50%, and a lack of support ranged from 10% to 60%. In aggregate, approximately 56% of respondents would be in favor of a more standardized process. Recently, after hearing about other fellowships experimenting with a standardized process, the interest in a unified approach doubled from approximately 29% to 60%, and the percentage of PDs with uncertainty decreased from 50% to 26%. In the most recent follow up survey, interest reached the highest level of 77% among PDs. Conclusions Herein we present several years of feedback from the CYP fellowship PD community regarding a more standardized approach to CYP fellowship recruitment, culminating in the latest survey with 77% of CYP fellowship PDs expressing interest. Thus, details about what a unified timeframe may look like for CYP fellowships is presented to show how this may improve the recruitment process for the mutual benefit for programs and applicants.

The 2019 ASCCP Risk Based Management Consensus Guidelines for prevention of cervical cancer promote clinical management recommendations aligned with our increased understanding of HPV biology and cervical carcinogenesis. They employ HPV-based testing as the basis for risk estimation, allow for personalized risk-based management by incorporating knowledge of current results with prior results, and streamline incorporation of new test methods as they are validated. They continue to support the principles of "equal management for equal risk" and "balancing harms and benefits" adopted in the 2012 version of the guidelines. These updated guidelines will be able to adjust for decreasing CIN3+ risks as more patients who received HPV vaccination reach screening age. Pathology organizations were closely involved in the development of these guidelines. Herein the pathologists who served as representatives to the 2019 ASCCP guidelines steering committee and workgroups, summarize the changes that are relevant to laboratories, pathologists, and cytotechnologists. Prior relevant screening and reporting recommendations that have not been widely and/or inconsistently adopted by laboratories are also discussed and considerations for modification of laboratory practices offered.

Laboratory management should be an integral part of training in pathology residency and fellowships. Herein, we have outlined some basic laboratory management topics a graduating cytopathology fellow should be familiar with. An overview of regulatory agencies that have oversight over laboratory testing, cytopathology laboratory accreditation, pre-analytic, analytic and post-analytic quality assurance, billing/coding, basic statistics, verification/validation of testing, physician credentialing, board certification/maintenance of certification, and malpractice in cytopathology are addressed. This review is by no means all inclusive, but rather a guide to the basic management related topics to be covered during cytopathology subspecialty training.

Introduction In concert with the 2014 update to the Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology, a Web-based image interobserver study was performed to evaluate concordance with the “expert panel” interpretation, as was done during the Bethesda 2001 update. The aim was to identify cytomorphologic features and Bethesda reporting categories that represent sources of poor interobserver agreement and see how the trends compared to the first Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST). Materials and methods Participants were recruited online through national and international cytopathology professional societies. Study participants evaluated 84 previously unpublished web images chosen from the third Bethesda Atlas image set, prior to the release of the atlas. These images spanned all reporting categories and included typical and borderline cytomorphology. Demographic information was collected on level of training, practice patterns, and experience of the participants. Participation was restricted to those correctly answering 2 basic cytopathology questions, ensuring minimal knowledge of gynecologic cytopathology. Results A total of 1290 unique individuals attempted access to this Web-based study and 833 correctly answered the two qualifying questions. Of these, 518 respondents completed the survey. Participant origin included: 59% United States, 41% international; 48% cytotechnologists, 41% pathologists, 5% fellows, and 6% other. Practice types were: 39% academic institutions, 29% private hospitals, and 16% commercial laboratories. Overall, the mean participant agreement with the exact Bethesda panel interpretation was 62.8%. The best agreement was found for negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM; 74%) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL; 86%) categories. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (63%), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL; 60%), atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US; 62%) and atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H; 60%) showed slightly lower concordance with the panel interpretations. Cervical glandular lesions were more problematic (33%). Anal samples performed similarly to their gynecologic counterparts. There was similar diagnostic agreement across participant certifications and practice type (academic versus non-academic). Performance was higher for United States and other North America–based participants ( P = 0.0104). This significance may be attributed to a language bias, as the survey was only offered in English. Conclusions Similar to the BIRST-1 study conducted in 2001, the most important factor for diagnostic agreement by cytotechnologists, pathologists, and trainees was the a priori difficulty of an image rather than participant training, certification, or experience. Participants showed better general diagnostic agreement with the expert panel interpretations of the material in BIRST-2 than in BIRST-1. Agreement was highest for Bethesda categories of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC. Concordance for even the borderline ASC-US and ASC-H categories exhibited remarkable improvement in the BIRST-2.

In 2009, the Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium issued a statement on human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test utilization that was published in multiple journals.1 This statement was a concise summary of the clinical indications for high-risk or oncogenic HPV testing based on guidelines from the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) published from 2002 through 2007.2,3 These organizations have since published newer consensus guidelines addressing HPV testing,4,5 and the previous summary no longer reflects current screening and management guidelines. High-risk HPV testing has proven utility in both cervical cancer screening and management. The 2012 screening guidelines endorsed by the ACS, ASCCP, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology state that combined cervical cytology and HPV testing is now the preferred strategy for women 30 years and older. The 2012 ASCCP guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors utilize cotesting extensively as both a sensitive and efficient way to manage and follow these women. Inappropriate or too-frequent screening, including HPV testing, can lead to increased costs without proven benefit and may also cause patient harm by overtreatment. The educational statement below is intended to improve adherence to current guidelines, thereby improving the health care of women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists affirms these recommendations and …

The main purpose of urine cytology is to detect high-grade urothelial carcinoma (HGUC). With this principle in mind, The Paris System (TPS) Working Group, composed of cytopathologists, surgical pathologists, and urologists, has proposed and published a standardized reporting system that includes specific diagnostic categories and cytomorphologic criteria for the reliable diagnosis of HGUC. This paper outlines the essential elements of TPS and the process that led to the formation and rationale of the reporting system. The Paris System Working Group, organized at the 2013 International Congress of Cytology, conceived a standardized platform on which to base cytologic interpretation of urine samples. The widespread dissemination of this approach to cytologic examination and reporting of urologic samples and the scheme's universal acceptance by pathologists and urologists is critical for its success. For urologists, understanding the diagnostic criteria, their clinical implications, and the limitations of TPS is essential if they are to utilize urine cytology and noninvasive ancillary tests in a thoughtful and practical manner. This is the first international/inclusive attempt at standardizing urinary cytology. The success of TPS will depend on the pathology and urology communities working collectively to improve this seminal paradigm shift, and optimize the impact on patient care.

The recent reversal of the US Preventive Services Task Force decision to drop cotesting (Papicolaou test + high-risk human papillomavirus test) as an option for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 to 65 years from their recommendations for cervical cancer screening was directly attributed to advocacy efforts by professional organizations and individuals. This communication summarizes the pathology and laboratory medicine community’s role in this advocacy effort by collaboration of all major US Pathology organizations, via the Cytopathology Education and Technology consortium.

The history of ‘The Bethesda System' for reporting cervical cytology goes back almost 3 decades. This terminology and the process that created it have had a profound impact on the practice of cervical cytology for laboratorians and clinicians alike. The Bethesda conferences and their ensuing output have also set the stage for standardization of terminology across multiple organ systems, including both cytology and histology, have initiated significant research in the biology and cost-effective management for human papillomavirus-associated anogenital lesions, and, finally, have fostered worldwide unification of clinical management for these lesions. Herein, we summarize the process and rationale by which updates were made to the terminology in 2014 and outline the contents of the new, third edition of the Bethesda atlas and corresponding website.

In September 2017, the United States Preventive Services Task Force put forth updated draft guidelines for cervical cancer screening in the United States, which were then open to public comment. The recommendations allowed for every-3-year cervical cytology screening in women aged 21 to 65 years with an option for every-5-year high-risk human papillomavirus testing in women aged 30 to 65 years. There was no option for cotesting. Other recommendations were similar to those published by other professional organizations. The Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium provided an official response during the open comment period, which is summarized here along with additional commentary by the authors.

Dear current and future ASC members, Welcome to the inaugural issue of American Society of Cytopathology’s journal, JASC! The society is proud to launch this effort and believes that the journal will become a valuable membership benefit that will be educative, and foster research and advocacy for cytopathology. We are in great handsdan awesome editorial team, a respected publisherdand contributions from all of us will ensure that this will be a successful ASC endeavor. I would like to take this opportunity to review where the ASC has been, where we are today, and where we are going. Let me begin, however, with some background on the current state of the nation’s health care as it pertains to members of our profession. The basic challenges in the rapidly evolving health care arena are not unique to pathology or cytopathologynamely, a relatively new and evolving health care system, workforce shortages, and economic pressures. With the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act, there will be changes in consumer demographics and new delivery systems. These changes, along with an increased emphasis on health Ritu Nayar, MD

Introduction The College of American Pathologists (CAP, Northfield, Illinois) monitors performance in cytologic analysis to evaluate the standard of practice and consider strategies for method improvement. Materials and methods 5700 responses to 97 pancreatobiliary tract brushing slide challenges were collected by the CAP Non-Gynecologic Cytopathology (NGC) Program, between 2000 and 2011. Analysis examined participant agreement with the general diagnostic categories of benign or malignant. Suspicious responses were classified as concordant with slides having a positive general diagnosis. Conventional smears with Pap stain and Romanowsky stain were evaluated in addition to CytoSpin, ThinPrep, and SurePath preparations. A nonlinear mixed model was fit with 3 factors—general diagnosis, participant type, and preparation type. Results Overall concordance rate was 91.7%. Preparation type and general diagnosis were significantly associated with the concordance rate. The interaction term between these two factors was also statistically significant, with ThinPrep performing marginally better for positive cases and CytoSpin performing better for negative cases. Conventional smears did not perform as well as CytoSpin, ThinPrep, or SurePath. Conclusions Participants performed well with greater than 90% agreement with the target diagnostic category. There was no significant difference between cytotechnologists and pathologists. Small significant differences were found between preparations types. The statistical differences between concentration techniques may be due to dissimilarities in the quantity of cells and quality of cytomorphology, thus affecting the interpretations by participating laboratories.

s S3 an increased trend in positive HPV in smears which have >3000 cells/PT. 4. HPV test results may be unreliable in PT with low cellularity ( 3000 cells/PT in women 45 years, especially if they are in the low risk category may be appropriate. Table Cell groups with HPV correlations 0-10 cells/ HPF (NZ356) 11-20 cells/ HPF (NZ181) 21-30 cells/ HPF (NZ100) 31 cells/ HPF (NZ149) Total (NZ786) HPV (-) 79 49 31 39 198 HPV (+) 5 2 2 4 13 HPV (+) % 5.95% 3.92% 6.06% 9.30% 6.16% Figure HPV testing clinical follow-up. Table 1 Prior HPV Test Results in Patients with Invasive Cervical Cancers Patient # HPV Test# Positive# %

Given the lack of recent literature regarding the aspiration cytology of immunohistochemically confirmed malignant mesothelioma (MM), we were interested in reviewing the experience of our institution and establishing useful morphologic criteria.Seventeen aspiration and touch preparation specimens with a diagnosis of MM obtained between 2002-2013 were reviewed along with 20 cases of adenocarcinoma and 16 cases of squamous cell carcinoma. The utility of a number of morphologic features was evaluated.In most cases of MM, a consistent pattern emerged. Aspirates and touch preps were cellular with irregularly shaped 2 and 3 dimensional clusters. The individual cells were predominantly angulated and had dense cytoplasm with eccentric nuclei. In every case, a minority of tumor cells contained prominent microvacuoles. The chromatin pattern tended to be fine with small nucleoli. While most cases were cytologically monotonous, five cases displayed striking pleomorphism and three cases contained occasional large atypical cells. Two cases contained metachromatic background material. Features which were most useful in discriminating MM from adenocarcinoma were angulated cell shape(P = 0.0002), dense cytoplasm(P = 0.0001), and cytoplasmic microvacuoles(P = 0.0001). In our material, cases of squamous cell carcinoma were often difficult to distinguish from MM. Useful discriminatory features present in squamous cell carcinoma included ink dot nuclei(P = 0.0003), a "dirty" cystic, necrotic background (P = 0.0027) and tumor balls with peripheral spindling(P = 0.0041).Most cases of MM have a consistent appearance in core biopsy touch preps and FNAs. Distinguishing MM from adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma can be facilitated by evaluating a few key morphologic features.