Search

Context: Next-generation sequencing-based approaches using RNA have increasingly been used by clinical laboratories for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events. Correspondingly, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has advanced RNA sequencing proficiency testing (PT) to ensure optimal performance of these assays., Objective: To report on laboratory performance and practices of RNA sequencing for the detection of fusion genes, intragenic rearrangements, and exon-skipping events using CAP PT data from 8 mailings (2018-A through 2021-B)., Design: CAP PT RNA sequencing program results from 153 laboratories across 24 proficiency test specimens, interrogating 22 distinct engineered fusion transcripts, were analyzed for correct identification of the fusion event, associated performance variables, and laboratory practices., Results: Overall, the 4-year program detection rate (sensitivity) was 95.5% (1486 of 1556 results). False-negative rates were 3.6% (53 of 1463) and 18.3% (17 of 93) for fusion gene and intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events, respectively. Only 19 false-positive results were reported among the 8 PT mailings, and most were likely the result of preanalytical or postanalytical errors. There were no practice characteristics (eg, instrumentation, sequencing method) significantly associated with the fusion detection results., Conclusions: These data reveal a high overall sensitivity and specificity for fusion gene detection by participating laboratories using clinical RNA sequencing. Performance was comparable across all laboratories, regardless of methodology. The fraction of false-negative results for intragenic rearrangement/exon-skipping events was greater than that for the chimeric fusion genes. False-negative results could not be attributed to any specific practice characteristics., Competing Interests: The identification of specific products or scientific instrumentation is considered an integral part of the scientific endeavor and does not constitute endorsement or implied endorsement on the part of the author, Department of Defense (DoD), or any component agency. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, DoD, or US government., (© 2024 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: The Sustainable Predictive Oncology Therapeutics and Diagnostics quality assurance pilot study (SPOT/Dx pilot) on molecular oncology next-generation sequencing (NGS) reportedly demonstrated performance limitations of NGS laboratory-developed tests, including discrepancies with a US Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic. The SPOT/Dx pilot methods differ from those used in proficiency testing (PT) programs., Objective.—: To reanalyze SPOT/Dx pilot data using PT program methods and compare to PT program data.Also see p. 136., Design.—: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) Molecular Oncology Committee reanalyzed SPOT/Dx pilot data applying PT program methods, adjusting for confounding conditions, and compared them to CAP NGS PT program performance (2019-2022)., Results.—: Overall detection rates of KRAS and NRAS single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and multinucleotide variants (MNVs) by SPOT/Dx pilot laboratories were 96.8% (716 of 740) and 81.1% (129 of 159), respectively. In CAP PT programs, the overall detection rates for the same SNVs and MNVs were 97.2% (2671 of 2748) and 91.8% (1853 of 2019), respectively. In 2022, the overall detection rate for 5 KRAS and NRAS MNVs in CAP PT programs was 97.3% (1161 of 1193)., Conclusions.—: CAP PT program data demonstrate that laboratories consistently have high detection rates for KRAS and NRAS variants. The SPOT/Dx pilot has multiple design and analytic differences with established PT programs. Reanalyzed pilot data that adjust for confounding conditions demonstrate that laboratories proficiently detect SNVs and less successfully detect rare to never-observed MNVs. The SPOT/Dx pilot results are not generalizable to all molecular oncology testing and should not be used to market products or change policy affecting all molecular oncology testing., (© 2024 College of American Pathologists.)

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., (© 2024 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: Substantial variability between different antibody titration methods has been identified since the development and introduction of the uniform procedure in 2008., Objective.—: To determine whether more recent methods or techniques decrease interlaboratory and intralaboratory variation measured using proficiency testing., Design.—: Proficiency test data for antibody titration between 2014 and 2018 were obtained from the College of American Pathologists. Interlaboratory and intralaboratory variations were compared by analyzing the distribution of titer results by method and phase, comparing the results against the supplier's quality control titer, and by evaluating the distribution of paired titer results when each laboratory received a sample with the same titer twice., Results.—: A total of 1337 laboratories participated in the antibody titer proficiency test during the study period. Only 54.1% (5874 of 10 852) of anti-D and 63.4% (3603 of 5680) of anti-A reported responses were within 1 titer of the supplier's intended result. Review of the agreement between laboratories of the same methodology found that 78.4% (3139 of 4004) for anti-A and 89.0% (9655 of 10 852) of laboratory responses for anti-D fell within 1 titer of the mode response. When provided with 2 consecutive samples of the same titer (anti-D titer: 16), 85% (367 of 434) of laboratories using the uniform procedure and 80% (458 of 576) using the other method reported a titer difference of 1 or less., Conclusions.—: Despite advances, interlaboratory and intralaboratory variance for this assay remains high in comparison with the strong reliance on titer results in clinical practice. There needs to be a reevaluation of the role of this test in clinical decision-making., (© 2023 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: Therapy targeted at human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2) was used initially for breast and gastroesophageal carcinoma and has more recently been adopted for endometrial serous carcinoma (ESC) and colorectal carcinoma (CRC). There is evidence that predictive biomarker testing algorithms for HER2 must be tumor type specific and that an algorithm validated for one tumor type cannot be applied to another., Objective.—: To describe current laboratory practices for HER2 assessment in ESC and CRC., Design.—: We surveyed laboratories participating in the 2021 College of American Pathologists (CAP) HER2 immunohistochemistry proficiency testing program., Results.—: The survey was distributed to 1548 laboratories and returned by 1195, of which 83.5% (998) were in the United States. For ESC, 24.0% (287) of laboratories reported performing in-house testing for HER2 by immunohistochemical staining and/or in situ hybridization; of these, 44.3% (127) performed it reflexively on all cases of ESC. The most common criterion for evaluating HER2 was the American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP 2018 guideline for breast carcinoma (69.0%; 194 of 281), whereas only 16.0% (45) of laboratories used guidelines specific to ESC. For CRC, 20.2% (239 of 1185) of laboratories performed in-house HER2 testing, and 82.0% of these (196) did the test only at the clinician's request. A plurality (49.4%; 115 of 233) used gastroesophageal cancer guidelines when scoring CRC, 30.0% (70) used the CRC scoring system from the HERACLES trial, and 16.3% (38) used the American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP 2018 guideline for breast carcinoma., Conclusions.—: Laboratories vary in their approach to HER2 testing in ESC and CRC. Most laboratories did not report using tumor type-specific recommendations for HER2 interpretation. The lack of standardization could present a challenge to evidence-based practice when considering targeted therapy for these diseases., (© 2023 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: Clinical testing for tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has evolved rapidly, but no practice guidelines exist., Objective.—: To summarize cfDNA laboratory practices based on self-reporting and assess preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical trends that may influence the quality, accuracy, and consistency of cfDNA testing., Design.—: Data were derived from the College of American Pathologists cfDNA proficiency testing program submitted by 101 participating laboratories from 2018 to 2019., Results.—: Most laboratories performing clinical circulating tumor DNA testing are commercial/nonhospital (71.2%; 72 of 101) and international (77.2%; 78 of 101) laboratories. Commercial laboratories had higher monthly test volumes than hospital-based laboratories (median, 36 versus 7-8) and tended to have larger gene panels (median, 50 versus 11 genes) when panel-based testing was offered. The main clinical indications include therapy selection and treatment/disease monitoring. Plasma is the most commonly accepted specimen, which is predominantly collected in cell-stabilizing tubes. Equal proportions of laboratories use next-generation sequencing (NGS) and non-NGS methods to assess key genes, including EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and IDH1. Most laboratories reported a lower limit of detection (LLOD) of 0.5%, variant allele frequency or less, which did not differ by method, NGS or non-NGS, except for EGFR. Sixty-five percent (17 of 26) of laboratories using the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved non-NGS EGFR assay report analytical sensitivities higher than 0.5%, as compared to 15% (16 of 104) of laboratories using an alternative NGS or non-NGS method. There is also a wider range in LLODs obtained for the FDA-approved EGFR assay than nonapproved assays., Conclusions.—: These results highlight emerging practice trends and serve as a foundation to initiate future practice recommendations., Competing Interests: The identification of specific products or scientific instrumentation is considered an integral part of the scientific endeavor and does not constitute endorsement or implied endorsement on the part of the authors, Department of Defense (DoD), or any component agency. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or US Government., (© 2023 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: Most laboratories currently use patient tissues for validating immunohistochemical stains., Objective.—: To explore advantages of using cell lines with known antigenicity as a validation method., Design.—: Five American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) cell lines with known negative, low positive, and moderate to strong estrogen receptor (ER) expression as well as negative, equivocal, and positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression were cultured and made into cell blocks. One block from each cell line was fixed in formalin and another in ethanol before cell block preparation. Two sets of paired unstained slides from each block were sent to 10 different laboratories for HER2 and ER staining to be stained on runs from different days according to each laboratory's defined protocol., Results.—: The 10 study participants evaluated 40 slides in a blinded fashion. For ER expression, all 80 interpretations for the ER strong and moderate positive cell lines had the target ER-positive result, and 74 of 80 ER-negative cell lines (92.5%) had agreement with the intended negative result. The ER low positive cell line showed varied but positive expression among all observers. The HER2 (3+)-positive cell lines yielded a target interpretation of 3+ in 65 of 80 interpretations (81.2%). For the HER2-negative cell line 69 of 78 interpretations (88.5%) were consistent with the target response (0 or 1+). No significant variation was observed between the ethanol- and non-ethanol-exposed cell lines, or between runs by the same laboratory. Variation from target results clustered within laboratories., Conclusions.—: This study indicates that variability between laboratories can be identified by using cell lines for quantitative or semiquantitative immunohistochemistry when using cultured cell lines of known antigenicity. These cell lines could potentially play a role in aiding anatomic pathology laboratories in validating immunohistochemistry tests for formalin- and ethanol-fixed tissues.

Context.—: In 2016, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) launched the first next-generation sequencing (NGS) in silico bioinformatics proficiency testing survey to evaluate the performance of clinical laboratory bioinformatics pipelines for the detection of oncology-associated variants at varying allele fractions. This survey focused on 2 commonly used oncology panels, the Illumina TruSeq Amplicon Cancer Panel and the Thermo Fisher Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot v2 Panel., Objective.—: To review the analytical performance of laboratories participating in the CAP NGS bioinformatics (NGSB) surveys, comprising NGSB1 for Illumina users and NGSB2 for Thermo Fisher Ion Torrent users, between 2016 and 2019., Design.—: Responses from 78 laboratories were analyzed for accuracy and associated performance characteristics., Results.—: The analytical sensitivity was 90.0% (1901 of 2112) for laboratories using the Illumina platform and 94.8% (2153 of 2272) for Thermo Fisher Ion Torrent users. Variant type and variant allele fraction were significantly associated with performance. False-negative results were seen mostly for multi-nucleotide variants and variants engineered at variant allele fractions of less than 25%. Analytical specificity for all participating laboratories was 99.8% (9303 of 9320). There was no statistically significant association between deletion-insertion length and detection rate., Conclusions.—: These results demonstrated high analytical sensitivity and specificity, supporting the feasibility and utility of using in silico mutagenized NGS data sets as a supplemental challenge to CAP surveys for oncology-associated variants based on physical samples. This program demonstrates the opportunity and challenges that can guide future surveys inclusive of customized in silico programs.

Context.—: Modern RHD genotyping can be used to determine when patients with serologic weak D phenotypes have RHD gene variants at risk for anti-D alloimmunization. However, serologic testing, RhD interpretations, and laboratory management of these patients are quite variable., Objective.—: To obtain interlaboratory comparisons of serologic testing, RhD interpretations, Rh immune globulin (RhIG) management, fetomaternal hemorrhage testing, and RHD genotyping for weak D-reactive specimens., Design.—: We devised an educational exercise in which 81 transfusion services supporting obstetrics performed tube-method RhD typing on 2 unknown red blood cell challenge specimens identified as (1) maternal and (2) newborn. Both specimens were from the same weak D-reactive donor. The exercise revealed how participants responded to these different clinical situations., Results.—: Of reporting laboratories, 14% (11 of 80) obtained discrepant immediate-spin reactions on the 2 specimens. Nine different reporting terms were used to interpret weak D-reactive maternal RhD types to obstetricians. In laboratories obtaining negative maternal immediate-spin reactions, 28% (16 of 57) performed unwarranted antiglobulin testing, sometimes leading to recommendations against giving RhIG. To screen for excess fetomaternal hemorrhage after a weak D-reactive newborn, 47% (34 of 73) of reporting laboratories would have employed a contraindicated fetal rosette test, risking false-negative results and inadequate RhIG coverage. Sixty percent (44 of 73) of laboratories would obtain RHD genotyping in some or all cases., Conclusions.—: For obstetric and neonatal patients with serologic weak D phenotypes, we found several critical problems in transfusion service laboratory practices. We provide recommendations for appropriate testing, consistent immunohematologic terminology, and RHD genotype-guided management of Rh immune globulin therapy and RBC transfusions., (© 2023 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) updated the Laboratory Accreditation Program Cytopathology Checklist to assist laboratories in meeting and exceeding the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments standards for gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC)., Objective.—: To survey the current CHC practices., Design.—: Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the committee and distributed to participants in the CAP Gynecologic Cytopathology PAP Education Program mailing., Results.—: Worldwide, CHC practice is nearly universally adopted, with an overall rate of 87.0% (568 of 653). CHC material was highly accessible. CHC was commonly performed real time/concurrently at the time the corresponding surgical pathology was reviewed. Investigation of CHC discordances varied with North American laboratories usually having a single pathologist review all discrepant histology and cytology slides to determine the reason for discordance, while international laboratories have a second pathologist review histology slides to determine the reason for discordance. The cause of CHC discordance was primarily sampling issues. The more common statistical metrics for CHC monitoring were the total percentage of cases that correlated with subsequent biopsies, screening error rate by cytotechnologist, and interpretative error rate by cytotechnologist., Conclusions.—: Many laboratories have adopted and implemented the CHC guidelines with identifiable differences in practices between North American and international laboratories. We identify the commonalities and differences between North American and international institutional practices including where CHC is performed, how CHC cases are identified and their accessibility, when CHC is performed, who investigates discordances, what discordances are identified, and how the findings affect quality improvement., (© 2023 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: Neoplastic cellularity assessment has become an essential component of molecular oncology testing; however, there are currently no best practice recommendations or guidelines for this potentially variable step in the testing process., Objective.—: To describe the domestic and international practices of neoplastic cellularity assessment and to determine how variations in laboratory practices affect neoplastic cellularity assessment accuracy., Design.—: Data were derived from 57 US and international laboratories that participated in the 2019 College of American Pathologists Neoplastic Cellularity Proficiency Testing Survey (NEO-B 2019). NEO-B 2019 included 29 laboratory practice questions and 5 images exhibiting challenging histologic features. Participants assessed the neoplastic cellularity of hematoxylin-eosin-stained digital images, and results were compared to a criterion standard derived from a manual cell count., Results.—: The survey responses showed variations in the laboratory practices for the assessment of neoplastic cellularity, including the definition of neoplastic cellularity, assessment methodology, counting practices, and quality assurance practices. In some instances, variation in laboratory practice affected neoplastic cellularity assessment performance., Conclusions.—: The results highlight the need for a consensus definition and improved standardization of the assessment of neoplastic cellularity. We put forth an initial set of best practice recommendations to begin the process of standardizing neoplastic cellularity assessment., Competing Interests: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Departments of the Army/Navy/Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US government.

Context.—: The 2017 Association for Molecular Pathology/American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (CAP) tier classification guideline provides a framework to standardize interpretation and reporting of somatic variants., Objective.—: To evaluate the adoption and performance of the 2017 guideline among laboratories performing somatic next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Design.—: A survey was distributed to laboratories participating in NGS CAP proficiency testing for solid tumors (NGSST) and hematologic malignancies (NGSHM)., Results.—: Worldwide, 64.4% (152 of 236) of NGSST and 66.4% (87 of 131) of NGSHM participants used tier classification systems, of which the 2017 guideline was used by 84.9% (129 of 152) of NGSST and 73.6% (64 of 87) of NGSHM participants. The 2017 guideline was modified by 24.4% (30 of 123) of NGSST and 21.7% (13 of 60) of NGSHM laboratories. Laboratories implementing the 2017 guideline were satisfied or very satisfied (74.2% [89 of 120] NGSST and 69.5% [41 of 59] NGSHM), and the impression of tier classification reproducibility was high (mean of 3.9 [NGSST] and 3.6 [NGSHM] on a 5-point scale). Of nonusers, 35.2% (38 of 108) of NGSST and 39.4% (26 of 66) of NGSHM laboratories were planning implementation. For future guideline revisions, respondents favored including variants to monitor disease (63.9% [78 of 122] NGSST, 80.0% [48 of 60] NGSHM) and germline variants (55.3% [63 of 114] NGSST, 75.0% [45 of 60] NGSHM). Additional subtiers were not favored by academic laboratories compared to nonacademic laboratories (P < .001 NGSST and P = .02 NGSHM)., Conclusions.—: The 2017 guideline has been implemented by more than 50.0% of CAP laboratories. While most laboratories using the 2017 guideline report satisfaction, thoughtful guideline modifications may further enhance the quality, reproducibility, and clinical utility of the 2017 guideline for tiered somatic variant classification.

Introduction: Distinguishing between low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) can be difficult on certain Papanicolaou (Pap) tests, hindering interobserver concordance. We investigated the variables influencing the interpretation of LSIL versus HSIL in Pap test slides rejected from the College of American Pathologists PAP education program., Materials and Methods: Eleven cytologists, who were unaware of the reference interpretation, examined 21 Pap slides (11 submitted as LSIL and 10 as HSIL) rejected from the PAP education program and recorded the number of LSIL cells, HSIL cells, keratinized dysplastic cells, LSIL clusters with mixed HSIL cells, atypical squamous metaplasia, atypical glandular cells, the presence of inflammation or infectious organisms, and the overall interpretation (LSIL or HSIL). We evaluated the significance of these 11 variables using a nonlinear mixed model analysis., Results: LSIL had greater concordance (92 of 121 responses; 76.0% concordance) than HSIL (68 of 110 responses; 61.8% concordance; P < 0.001). The only predictors of misclassified cases were the number of atypical squamous metaplastic cells and the number of HSIL cells (P < 0.001). The more of these cells identified, the more likely the reviewers were to classify the slide as HSIL. The reproducibility of the diagnosis was fair (Gwet's agreement coefficient, 0.33)., Conclusions: Interobserver reproducibility is a challenge for a subset of cases with features intermediate between LSIL and HSIL. Atypical squamous metaplasia and dysplastic nuclei with a nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio greater than one half of the cell volume (HSIL) present on a Pap test influenced the likelihood that a reviewer would interpret the case as HSIL rather than LSIL., (Copyright © 2021 American Society of Cytopathology. All rights reserved.)

Context.—: The yield of the prospective rescreening process for "negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy" (NILM) Papanicolaou (Pap) tests is higher with the inclusion of a greater proportion of high-risk cases. One of the suggested criteria for classifying a Pap test finding as high risk is recent or concurrent high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity., Objective.—: To evaluate how the results of HPV testing have been incorporated in the prospective rescreening of NILM Pap tests across a wide range of laboratories., Design.—: A questionnaire survey was sent to laboratories participating in the 2019 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytology (PAP Education) Program., Results.—: Of the 1507 participating laboratories, 667 (44%) responded to the survey. Most laboratories (59.4%; 396 of 667) had not incorporated HPV test/genotyping results to select NILM Pap tests for rescreening. Amongst the remaining laboratories, for NILM HPV-positive Pap test results, 112 (16.8%) had a policy to rescreen by a cytotechnologist only, 51 (7.6%) by a pathologist only, and 86 (12.9%) by both. Of 264 laboratories, 181 (68.6%) reported the cytology upon availability of the HPV test result and completion of the secondary review. Of 661 laboratories, 145 (21.9%) included consensus-type recommendations in the cytology report for such Pap tests., Conclusions.—: This CAP survey provides significant information regarding the current trends in the use of HPV test results in prospective rescreening of NILM Pap tests. Future studies on quality improvement can further assist in the standardization of this process across different laboratories.

Context.—: The College of American Pathologists surveys provide national benchmarks of pathology practice for laboratories., Objective.—: To investigate breast fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy practice in domestic and international laboratories in 2019., Design.—: We analyzed data from the College of American Pathologists Breast FNA Practice Supplemental Questionnaire that was distributed to laboratories participating in the 2019 College of American Pathologists Non-Gynecologic Cytopathology Education Program., Results.—: Sixty-one percent (499 of 816) of respondent laboratories routinely evaluated breast FNAs. Cystic lesions were the most common indication, and radiologists primarily performed FNAs in most settings. Forty-five percent (220 of 491) of laboratories performed ancillary studies on breast FNA samples, but 33.8% (70 of 207) did not report fixation time for breast biomarker studies. Only 54.5% (271 of 497) of laboratories had a standardized reporting system and only 16.8% (82 of 488) were aware of the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama Breast FNA Biopsy Cytology Reporting System. There were significant differences among different types of institutions in several aspects of breast FNA practice, including frequency of concurrent FNA and core needle biopsy for the same lesion, primary personnel who performed the FNA, etc. Significant differences existed between domestic and international laboratories in slide preparation, ancillary studies, fixation time reporting, standardized/descriptive diagnosis, and International Academy of Cytology Yokohama Reporting System awareness., Conclusions.—: This is the first survey from the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee to investigate breast FNA practices. The data reveal significant differences in breast FNA practice among different types of institutions and between domestic and international laboratories, and provide a baseline for future breast FNA studies in a variety of practice settings., Competing Interests: The authors are or were members of the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee. Souers is an employee of the College of American Pathologists.

Context.—: Repair is a challenging diagnosis and a significant source of false-positive (FP) interpretations in cervical cytology. No large-scale study of performance of repair in the liquid-based era has been performed., Objective.—: To evaluate the performance of repair in the College of American Pathologists Pap Education and Proficiency Testing (PT) programs., Design.—: The FP rate for slides classified as repair was evaluated by preparation type, participant type (cytotechnologist, pathologist, or laboratory), and program. The specific misdiagnosis category and individual slide performance were also evaluated. The rate of misclassification of slides as repair by participants for other diagnostic categories in the Pap Education program was assessed., Results.—: The overall FP rate was 1700 of 12 715 (13.4%). There was no significant difference by program or preparation type. Within the Education program there was no difference by participant type, but pathologists' FP rate in the PT program (47 of 514, 9.1%) was significantly better than cytotechnologists in the PT program (51 of 380, 13.4%) and pathologists in the Education program (690 of 4900, 14.1%). High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions/cancers (HSIL+) accounted for 1380 of 1602 FP interpretations (86%) in Education, but 43 of 98 (43.9%) in PT. Most slides had a low rate of misclassification, but a small number were poor performers. False-negative diagnosis of HSIL+ as repair was less common, ranging from 0.7% to 1.8%., Conclusions.—: Despite initial indications that liquid-based cytology might reduce the rate of misclassification of repair, FP interpretations remain common and are no different by preparation type. Misclassification is most commonly as HSIL or carcinoma, potentially resulting in significant patient harm., Competing Interests: The authors are or were members of the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee. Ms Souers and Ms Goodrich are employees of the College of American Pathologists., (© 2020 College of American Pathologists.)

Context.—: Consolidation of clinical microbiology laboratory services has resulted in extended transit time for blood cultures from service points distant from the laboratory. Sepsis is critical; delays in identification of etiologic agents of diseases could adversely impact patient care., Objective.—: To examine the effect of total preanalytic time and blood culture volume on the instrument time-to-detection for bacterial pathogens in blood cultures. A secondary objective was to obtain relevant blood culture information by questionnaire., Design.—: Participants in this Q-Probes study recorded date, time, and volume information for the first 50 positive blood cultures collected during the 12-week study period. Additional information regarding blood culture collection practices was obtained through questionnaire., Results.—: Prolonged overall time-to-detection was secondary to prolonged preanalytic time, particularly prolonged transit time, rather than slower organism growth once bottles were placed on the instrument. Among 1578 blood cultures, the overall time from collection to positive result was significantly less for blood cultures collected on-site than for off-site locations. Most institutions lack sufficient training programs and do not monitor preanalytic time metrics associated with blood cultures. Four hundred fifty-six of the 1580 blood cultures with blood volume adequacy reported (28.9%) were inadequately filled., Conclusions.—: Overall process time (specimen collection to positive blood culture detection) is predicted to be higher for blood cultures collected off-site. Transit time is a variable that can be reduced to decrease overall time to detection. Thus, improved training and closer attention to preanalytic metrics associated with blood cultures could decrease hospital stays and mortality rates.

Purpose: Summarize and interpret results from exercises distributed to laboratories offering cell-free (cf) DNA screening for Down syndrome., Methods: The College of American Pathologists distributed three patient-derived plasma specimens twice in 2018. Sequencing platforms, test methods, results, and responses to supplemental questions were collected. Results were not graded but discrepancies were identified., Results: Sixty-five laboratories from six continents enrolled; six provided no results. The most common methodology was shotgun/genome sequencing (39/56, 70%). Overall, 40% of the gestational or maternal age responses were incorrect but 45% of the errors were corrected by the next distribution. Fetal fractions from 54 responding laboratories generally agreed with the intended response. No genotyping errors occurred (40/40 for trisomy 21 and 226/226 for euploid challenges) but 10 additional tests failed (3.6%). All 213 fetal sex calls were correct. Participants reported their clinical text for a Down syndrome screen positive test; 39% were classified as inadequate or misleading., Conclusion: Patient-derived materials are suitable for all enrolled technologies/methodologies, but collecting material is challenging. Suggested clinical text includes the terms "screen positive" and "screen negative." Overall, laboratories performed well. Future efforts will focus on potential manufactured samples, clarifying results reporting and including additional chromosome abnormalities.

Context.—: Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) in squamous cell carcinoma is important for classification and prognostication. In situ hybridization (ISH) is a commonly used HR-HPV-specific test that targets viral RNA or DNA. The College of American Pathologists (CAP) provides proficiency testing for laboratories performing HR-HPV ISH., Objective.—: To compare the analytical performance of RNA- and DNA-based ISH methods on CAP HR-HPV proficiency tests., Design.—: Data from the 2016-2018 CAP HPV ISH proficiency testing surveys were reviewed. These surveys consist of well-characterized samples with known status for HR-HPV, including 1 to 2 copies, 50 to 100 copies, 300 to 500 copies, and no copies of HR-HPV per cell., Results.—: Ninety-five participants submitted 1268 survey results from 20 cores. Overall, RNA ISH had a significantly higher percentage of correct responses than DNA ISH: 97.4% (450 of 462) versus 80.6% (650 of 806) ( P < .001). This disparity appears to be the consequence of a superior sensitivity of RNA ISH compared to DNA ISH for samples with 1 to 2 and with 50 to 100 copies of HR-HPV per cell: 95.2% (120 of 126) versus 53.8% (129 of 240), P < .001, respectively, and 100% (89 of 89) versus 76.3% (119 of 156), P < .001, respectively., Conclusions.—: An assessment of CAP HR-HPV proficiency test performance indicates that RNA ISH shows significantly higher accuracy than DNA ISH owing to higher analytical sensitivity of RNA ISH in tumors with low (1-2 copies per cell) to intermediate (50-100 copies per cell) HR-HPV viral copy numbers. These data support the use of RNA over DNA ISH in clinical laboratories that perform HR-HPV testing as part of their testing algorithms.

Context.—: The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology has been disseminated since its inception in 2013; however, the daily practice patterns of urinary tract cytopathology are not well known., Objective.—: To assess urinary tract cytopathology practice patterns across a variety of pathology laboratories to aid in the implementation and future update of the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology., Design.—: A questionnaire was designed to gather information about urinary tract cytopathology practices and mailed in July 2014 to 2116 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program. The participating laboratories' answers were summarized., Results.—: Of the 879 of 2116 laboratories (41%) that participated, 745 (84.8%) reported processing urinary tract specimens in house. The laboratories reported processing various specimen types: voided urine, 735 of 738 (99.6%); bladder washing/barbotage, 639 of 738 (86.6%); and catheterized urine specimens, 653 of 738 (88.5%). Some laboratories used multiple preparation methods, but the most commonly used preparation techniques for urinary tract specimens were ThinPrep (57.4%) and Cytospin (45.5%). Eighty-eight of 197 laboratories (44.7%) reported preparing a cell block, but with a low frequency. Adequacy criteria were used by 295 of 707 laboratories (41.7%) for voided urine, and 244 of 707 (34.5%) assessed adequacy for bladder washing/barbotage. More than 95% of the laboratories reported the use of general categories: negative, atypical, suspicious, and positive. Polyomavirus was classified as negative in 408 of 642 laboratories (63.6%) and atypical in 189 of 642 (29.4%). One hundred twenty-eight of 708 laboratories (18.1%) performed ancillary testing, and of these, 102 of 122 (83.6%) reported performing UroVysion., Conclusions.—: Most laboratories use the ThinPrep method followed by the Cytospin technique; therefore, the criteria published in The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology , based mostly on ThinPrep and SurePath, should be validated for Cytospin, and relevant information should be included in the revised edition of The Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology .

Context.—: To date, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) has developed 17 laboratory practice guidelines (LPGs) including updates. In 2013, the CAP was awarded a 5-year cooperative agreement grant from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase the effectiveness of LPGs., Objective.—: To assess the awareness and adoption of 2 CAP LPGs: immunohistochemical (IHC) assay validation and initial workup of acute leukemia., Design.—: Baseline surveys for each LPG were conducted in 2010 and 2015, respectively. To measure the adoption of guideline recommendations and inform future updates, a follow-up study consisting of surveys, telephone interviews, and focus group sessions was conducted in laboratories that indicated they perform IHC testing. A follow-up study for the acute leukemia LPG is planned., Results.—: For the IHC Validation LPG, a total of 1624 survey responses, 40 telephone interviews, and discussions with 5 focus group participants were analyzed. The response rate for the aforementioned 3 modalities was 46%, 13%, and 3%, respectively. All modalities indicated most respondents were aware of the LPG and had adopted most or all of its recommendations. Respondents expressed needs for continued communication, increased specificity, and more prescriptive recommendations when the guideline is updated., Conclusions.—: While data-driven development of evidence-based LPGs requires significant resources, active data collection to identify gaps and assess adoption contributes to improved laboratory testing practices in support of patient care. The CAP identified sustainable modalities to track metrics and developed multiple tools that should improve guideline development, adoption, and implementation. Of these modalities, written or electronic surveys were the most logistically feasible and had the highest response rate.

Context.—: The Kleihauer-Betke (KB) test is validated for estimating the dose of Rh immune globulin needed for Rh-negative pregnant females. However, some clinicians are also ordering the test for Rh-positive women. The degree to which this practice occurs is unknown., Objective.—: To evaluate the number of laboratories that perform the KB test on Rh-positive pregnant women, and to establish current ordering practices for this indication., Design.—: We added 9 supplemental questions regarding KB test use for fetomaternal hemorrhage to the 2016 College of American Pathologists proficiency test survey. We also reviewed the available literature regarding the diagnostic utility of the KB test for Rh-positive women., Results.—: A total of 1578 surveys were evaluated and revealed that 52% (824) of respondents perform these tests for Rh-positive women, and more than 50% (440 of 819; 53.7%) of these laboratories report that the results for Rh-positive women are treated as important or very important., Conclusions.—: The KB test is commonly used for Rh-positive women, and the information obtained from the test is considered as urgent and important. However, the available literature in support of this practice is still nonconclusive.

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.—: Cervical cancer screening laboratory practices may evolve with new terminology and technologies., Objective.—: To investigate changes in cervical cytopathology practice resulting from the 2014 Bethesda System updates and screening technologies., Design.—: Questionnaires accompanied 2016 and 2017 mailings of the College of American Pathologists PAP Education program., Results.—: In 2016, most laboratories surveyed had adopted or were planning to adopt 2014 Bethesda System updates, and the majority (53%; 365 of 689) used an age cutoff of 45 for reporting benign-appearing endometrial cells. However, 51.3% (354 of 690) of laboratories used the term low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, for cases with indeterminate features, and 44.9% (298 of 664) of laboratories used a 5000-cell cutoff for minimum squamous cellularity for posthysterectomy and posttherapy specimens. Reporting rates for cervical cytology metrics changed very little from 2013 to 2016, and the median ratio of atypical squamous cells to squamous intraepithelial lesion cases was 1.9 for ThinPrep and 1.8 for SurePath preparations. Most laboratories (59.4%; 389 of 655) did not offer stand-alone primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in 2017, and primary HPV testing accounted for a low proportion of HPV testing volumes. The Roche Cobas method was the most common platform for HPV primary screening., Conclusions.—: These questionnaire surveys provide data about the current status of cervical cytology screening, including changes related to the 2014 Bethesda System updates and the adoption of HPV primary screening techniques.

Context: Creating a tool that assesses professional proficiency in gynecologic cytology is challenging. A valid proficiency test (PT) must reflect practice conditions, evaluate locator and interpretive skills, and discriminate between those practitioners who are competent and those who need more education. The College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Proficiency Testing Program (PAPPT) was approved to enroll participants in a nationwide PT program in 2006., Objective: Report results from the 2006 PAPPT program., Design: Summarize PT results by pass/fail rate, participant type, and slide-set modules., Results: Nine thousand sixty-nine participants showed initial PT failure rates of 5%, 16%, and 6% for cytotechnologists, primary screening pathologists, and secondary screening pathologist, respectively. The overall initial test failure rate was 6%. After 3 retests, 9029 (99.6%) of the participants were able to achieve compliance with the PT requirement. No participant "tested out"; however, 40 individuals "dropped out" of the testing sequence (8 cytotechnologists, 9 primary screening pathologists, 23 secondary screening pathologists). Initial failure rates by slide-set modules were 6% conventional, 6% ThinPrep, 6% SurePath, and 5% mixture of all 3 slide types., Conclusions: A total of 99.6% of individuals enrolled in the 2006 PAPPT program achieved satisfactory results. The data confirm that cytotechnologists have higher initial pass rates than pathologists and pathologists who are secondary screeners perform better than those who are primary screeners. There was no difference identified in overall pass rates between the slide-set modules. Further analysis of data should help define the results and ongoing challenges of providing a nationwide federally mandated proficiency testing program in gynecologic cytology.