Search

Context.—The cytomorphology of liquid-based preparations in urine cytology is different than classic slide preparations.Objectives.—To compare the performance of liquid-based preparation specimens to classically prepared urine specimens with a malignant diagnosis in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology.Design.—Participant responses between 2000 and 2007 for urine specimens with a reference diagnosis of high-grade urothelial carcinoma/carcinoma in situ/dysplasia (HGUCA), squamous cell carcinoma, or adenocarcinoma were evaluated. ThinPrep and SurePath challenges were compared with classic preparations (smears, cytospins) for discordant responses.Results.—There were 18 288 pathologist, 11 957 cytotechnologist, and 8086 “laboratory” responses available. Classic preparations comprised 90% (n = 34 551) of urine challenges; 9% (n = 3295) were ThinPrep and 1% (n = 485) were SurePath. Concordance to the general category of “positive-malignant” was seen in 92% of classic preparations, 96.5% of ThinPrep, and 94.6% of SurePath challenges (P < .001). These results were statistically different for the exact reference interpretation of HGUCA (P < .001) but not for adenocarcinoma (P = .22). Cytotechnologists demonstrate statistically better performance for the general category of “positive-malignant” compared with pathologists for all urinary slide types and for the exact reference interpretation of HGUCA (94% versus 91.1%; P < .001) but not adenocarcinoma (96.3% versus 95.8%; P = .77) or squamous cell carcinoma (93.6% versus 87.7%; P = .07).Conclusions.—Liquid-based preparations performed significantly better in urinary cytology challenges when evaluating malignant categories in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program. The liquid-based preparation challenges also performed better for the exact reference interpretation of HGUCA, but no difference was observed for adenocarcinoma challenges. Cytotechnologists perform better than pathologists for all slide types, as well as those demonstrating HGUCA. These results suggest that liquid-based preparations facilitate a more accurate diagnosis than conventional preparations.

ContextAnal cytology is being used more frequently for anal cancer screening, yet many cytologists are unfamiliar with it.ObjectiveTo describe the performance of anal cytology in the College of American Pathologists' Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Non-Gynecologic Cytology (CAP NGC) educational slide program during a 6-year time span, from 2006 to 2011, using participant responses (pathologist, cytotechnologist, and laboratory).DesignConcordance rates for the target diagnosis and general category for each slide challenge were analyzed. Four main factors were included in the analysis: (1) general category or specific responses, (2) program year from 2006 to 2011, (3) participant type (pathologist, cytotechnologist, or overall laboratory), and (4) preparation type (liquid-based or conventional).ResultsParticipants most frequently correctly classified negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, and herpes simplex virus infection, with concordance rates of 78.8%, 85%, and 80.2%, respectively. Performance on challenges with target diagnoses of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), squamous cell carcinoma, and ameba was poor, with concordance rates of 57.1%, 56.2%, and 41.5%, respectively. Significant improvement during the 6 years was seen in the concordance rates of participants' responses for low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion challenges but not for HSIL. There was no significant difference in performance by slide preparation type.ConclusionsThe poor performance on anal cytology in the CAP NGC program, especially with regard to correct identification of HSIL and squamous cell carcinoma, indicates that there is a need for continued education about anal cytology.