Search

* Context.--Obtaining diagnostic concordance for squamous intraepithelial lesions in cytology can be challenging.Objective.--To determine diagnostic concordance for biopsy-proven low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) Papanicolaou test slides in the College of American Pathologists PAP Education program.Design.--We analyzed 121 059 responses from 4251 LSIL and HSIL slides for the interval 2004 to 2013 using a nonlinear mixed-model fit for reference diagnosis, preparation type, and participant type. We evaluated interactions between the reference diagnosis and the other 2 factors in addition to a repeated-measures component to adjust for slide-specific performance.Results.--There was a statistically significant difference between misclassification of LSIL (2.4%; 1384 of 57 664) and HSIL (4.4%; 2762 of 63 395). There was no performance difference between pathologists and cytotechnologists for LSIL, but cytotechnologists had a significantly higher HSIL misclassification rate than pathologists (5.5%; 1437 of 27 534 versus 4.0%; 1032 of 25 630; P = .01), and both were more likely to misrepresent HSIL as LSIL (P < .001) than the reverse. ThinPrep LSIL slides were more likely to be misclassified as HSIL (2.4%; 920 of 38 582) than SurePath LSIL slides (1.5%; 198 of 13 196), but conventional slides were the most likely to be misclassified in both categories (4.5%; 266 of 5886 for LSIL, and 6.5%; 573 of 8825 for HSIL).Conclusions.--More participants undercalled HSIL as LSIL (false-negative) than overcalled LSIL as HSIL (false-positive) in the PAP Education program, with conventional slides more likely to be misclassified than ThinPrep or SurePath slides. Pathologists and cytotechnologists classify LSIL equally well, but cytotechnologists are significantly more likely to undercall HSIL as LSIL than are pathologists.doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0003-CP), The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Cytopathology Committee maintains and administers the PAP Education (PAP Ed) program, which provides 2 mailings of 5 glass slide Papanicolaou (Pap) tests annually to [...]

Context.--Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is difficult to correctly interpret on Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology slides and false-negative interpretations of AIS can cause significant problems in daily practice. Objective.--To investigate the false-negative interpretation rate of AIS and the factors related to false-negative interpretation through responses in an educational environment. Design.--We retrospectively evaluated 11 337 responses in the PAP Education Program (PAP-Edu) from 173 AIS slides from 2011 to 2015. The false-negative interpretation rate, most common false-negative interpretations, and related other factors were evaluated. Results.--The overall false-negative rate was 6.9% (784 of 11 337). Respondents correctly interpreted AIS 50.0% (5667 of 11 337) of the time; high-grade intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and malignancies (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and other carcinomas) accounted for 42.7% (4842 of 11 337) and low-grade intraepithelial lesion accounted for 0.4% (44 of 11 337) of responses. Overall, 92.7% (10 509 of 11 337) of responses were HSIL and above. Among 784 false-negative responses, negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy was the most common (61.5% [482 of 784]), followed by reparative changes (24.1% [189 of 784]) and atrophic vaginitis (7.7% [60 of 784]). Overall, pathologists' responses showed a significantly higher false-negative rate than cytotechnologists' responses (8.3%, 403 of 4835 versus 5.7%, 275 of 4816; P < .001). The false-negative response rates were not statistically different among preparation types. Conclusions.--The low correct interpretation rate and higher false-negative rate for AIS demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting AIS on Pap cytology, which may cause clinical consequences. The higher false-negative rate with pathologists than with cytotechnologists suggests cytotechnologists' higher screening sensitivity for AIS or cautious interpretation to avoid false-positive results by pathologists. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:666-670; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2016-0234-CP), Cervical glandular neoplasia, including adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and invasive adenocarcinoma, is less common than squamous neoplasia. However, the relative proportion of glandular neoplasia has increased from 5% to 25% [...]

* Context.--Since 2008, the College of American Pathologists has provided the human papillomavirus for cytology laboratories (CHPV) proficiency testing program to help laboratories meet the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. Objectives.--To provide an update on trends in proficiency testing performance in the College of American Pathologists CHPV program during the 4-year period from 2011 through 2014 and to compare those trends with the preceding first 3 years of the program. Design.--Responses of laboratories participating in the CHPV program from 2011 through 2014 were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed model to compare different combinations of testing medium and platform. Results.--In total, 818 laboratories participated in the CHPV program at least once during the 4 years, with participation increasing during the study period. Concordance of participant responses with the target result was more than 98% (38 280 of 38 892). Overall performance with all 3 testing media--ThinPrep (Hologic, Bedford, Massachusetts), SurePath (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), or Digene (Qiagen, Valencia, California)--was equivalent (P = .51), and all 4 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved platforms--Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cervista (Hologic), Aptima (Hologic), and cobas (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, California)--outperformed laboratory-developed tests, unspecified commercial kits, and other (noncommercial) methods in ThinPrep medium (P < .001). However, certain off-label combinations of platform and medium, most notably Cervista with SurePath, demonstrated suboptimal performance (P < .001). Conclusions.--Laboratories demonstrated proficiency in using various combinations of testing media and platforms offered in the CHPV program, with statistically significant performance differences in certain combinations. These observations may be relevant in the current discussions about FDA oversight of laboratory-developed tests. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140:1371-1374; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0526-CP), Laboratories that are licensed to test for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in patient samples are required by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) to participate in annual [...]

Context.--College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys are used to establish national benchmarks for laboratory parameters. Objective.--To evaluate changes in laboratory human papillomavirus (HPV) testing patterns in laboratories incorporating HPV testing with Papanicolaou tests in 2012. Design.--Data were analyzed from the CAP HPV Supplemental Questionnaire distributed to 1771 laboratories participating in either CAP HPV or CAP Papanicolaou proficiency testing in 2013. Results.--A total of 1022 laboratories (58%) responded. There were more high-risk (HR) HPV tests performed per institution as compared to previous surveys. There were more HPV tests performed within an institution as compared to previous surveys. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) remains the most common method (42.4%, 239 of 564); Cervista and cobas methods are used in 37.2% (210 of 564) and 14.9% (84 of 564) of laboratories, respectively. Human papillomavirus testing is offered as a reflex test after a Papanicolaou test result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) in 89.6% of laboratories (476 of 531); as a cotest for women aged 30 years and older in 60.3% (404 of 531); as reflex testing after atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) in 42.7% (320 of 531); and as reflex testing after atypical glandular cells (AGC) in 27.3% (145 of 531). The HPV-positive rates for ASC-US and ASC-H were similar in 2012 and 2006. Cervista (49.2%, 88 of 179) and Roche cobas (27.4%, 49 of 179) are the most common methods used for genotyping. Most laboratories use the CAP Human Papillomavirus for Cytology Program for proficiency testing. Conclusions.--There was an increase in annual volume of HR-HPV testing with a shift toward in-house HR-HPV testing. Genotyping volumes also increased. HC2 and Cervista are most commonly used, with an increasing volume of Roche cobas testing. The most common indication for HPV testing among all laboratories was ASC-US reflex testing, but an increase in HPV cotesting was observed. The data provide an update into persisting and newer trends in HPV testing practices. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:757-761; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0393-CP), The College of American Pathologists (CAP) has used survey questionnaires to assess practice patterns in cervicovaginal cytology since 1994. These surveys have documented the widespread implementation of the first 2 [...]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is difficult to correctly interpret on Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology slides and false-negative interpretations of AIS can cause significant problems in daily practice. Objective.--To investigate the false-negative interpretation rate of AIS and the factors related to false-negative interpretation through responses in an educational environment. Design.--We retrospectively evaluated 11 337 responses in the PAP Education Program (PAP-Edu) from 173 AIS slides from 2011 to 2015. The false-negative interpretation rate, most common false-negative interpretations, and related other factors were evaluated. Results.--The overall false-negative rate was 6.9% (784 of 11 337). Respondents correctly interpreted AIS 50.0% (5667 of 11 337) of the time; high-grade intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and malignancies (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and other carcinomas) accounted for 42.7% (4842 of 11 337) and low-grade intraepithelial lesion accounted for 0.4% (44 of 11 337) of responses. Overall, 92.7% (10 509 of 11 337) of responses were HSIL and above. Among 784 false-negative responses, negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy was the most common (61.5% [482 of 784]), followed by reparative changes (24.1% [189 of 784]) and atrophic vaginitis (7.7% [60 of 784]). Overall, pathologists' responses showed a significantly higher false-negative rate than cytotechnologists' responses (8.3%, 403 of 4835 versus 5.7%, 275 of 4816; P, .001). The false-negative response rates were not statistically different among preparation types. Conclusions.--The low correct interpretation rate and higher false-negative rate for AIS demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting AIS on Pap cytology, which may cause clinical consequences. The higher false-negative rate with pathologists than with cytotechnologists suggests cytotechnologists' higher screening sensitivity for AIS or cautious interpretation to avoid false-positive results by pathologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.—College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys are used to establish national benchmarks for laboratory parameters. Objective.—To evaluate changes in laboratory human papillomavirus (HPV) testing patterns in laboratories incorporating HPV testing with Papanicolaou tests in 2012. Design.—Data were analyzed from the CAP HPV Supplemental Questionnaire distributed to 1771 laboratories participating in either CAP HPV or CAP Papanicolaou proficiency testing in 2013. Results.—A total of 1022 laboratories (58%) responded. There were more high-risk (HR) HPV tests performed per institution as compared to previous surveys. There were more HPV tests performed within an institution as compared to previous surveys. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) remains the most common method (42.4%, 239 of 564); Cervista and cobas methods are used in 37.2% (210 of 564) and 14.9% (84 of 564) of laboratories, respectively. Human papillomavirus testing is offered as a reflex test after a Papanicolaou test result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) in 89.6% of laboratories (476 of 531); as a cotest for women aged 30 years and older in 60.3% (404 of 531); as reflex testing after atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) in 42.7% (320 of 531); and as reflex testing after atypical glandular cells (AGC) in 27.3% (145 of 531). The HPV-positive rates for ASC-US and ASC-H were similar in 2012 and 2006. Cervista (49.2%, 88 of 179) and Roche cobas (27.4%, 49 of 179) are the most common methods used for genotyping. Most laboratories use the CAP Human Papillomavirus for Cytology Program for proficiency testing. Conclusions.—There was an increase in annual volume of HR-HPV testing with a shift toward in-house HR-HPV testing. Genotyping volumes also increased. HC2 and Cervista are most commonly used, with an increasing volume of Roche cobas testing. The most common indication for HPV testing among all laboratories was ASC-US reflex testing, but an increase in HPV cotesting was observed. The data provide an update into persisting and newer trends in HPV testing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]