Search

* Context.--The College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys provide national benchmarks of pathology practice. Objective.--To investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice in domestic and international laboratories in 2021. Design.--We analyzed data from the CAP Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Practice Supplemental Questionnaire that was distributed to laboratories participating in the 2021 CAP Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program. Results.--Ninety-three percent (567 of 612) of respondent laboratories routinely evaluated pancreaticobiliary cytology specimens. Biliary brushing (85%) was the most common pancreaticobiliary cytology specimen evaluated, followed by pancreatic fine-needle aspiration (79%). The most used sampling methods reported by 235 laboratories were 22-gauge needle for fine-needle aspiration (62%) and SharkCore needle for fine-needle biopsy (27%). Cell block was the most used slide preparation method (76%), followed by liquid-based cytology (59%) for pancreatic cystic lesions. Up to 95% (303 of 320) of laboratories performed rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on pancreatic solid lesions, while 56% (180 of 320) performed ROSE for cystic lesions. Thirty-six percent (193 of 530) of laboratories used the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology in 2021. Among all institution types, significant differences in specimen volume, specimen type, ROSE practice, and case sign-out were identified. Additionally, significant differences in specimen type, slide preparation, and ROSE practice were found. Conclusions.--This is the first survey from the CAP to investigate pancreaticobiliary cytology practice. The findings reveal significant differences among institution types and between domestic and international laboratories. These data provide a baseline for future studies in a variety of practice settings. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2024;148:677-685; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2023-0167-CP), Cytology has proven to be a minimally invasive and cost-effective modality for accurately diagnosing pancreaticobiliary lesions, and in some patients, the only modality to diagnose lesions in this anatomic region. [...]

* Context.--In recent years, several reporting systems have been developed by national and international cytopathology organizations to standardize the evaluation of specific cytopathology specimen types. Objective.--To assess the current implementation rates, implementation methods, and barriers to implementation of commonly used nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories. Design.--Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee and distributed to participants in the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing. Results.--Nongynecologic reporting systems with the highest rate of adoption were the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology, 2nd edition (74.1%; 552 of 745); the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (53.9%; 397 of 736); and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (29.1%; 200 of 688). The most common reason given for not adopting a reporting system was satisfaction with a laboratory's current system. Implementation varied among laboratories with regard to which stakeholders were involved in deciding to implement a system and the amount of education provided during the implementation process. Conclusions.--The implementation of nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories was highly variable., A shared language and framework of understanding are central components to the effective and safe practice of medicine. Although cytopathology shares some of the same language as histopathology, cytopathology specimens [...]

* 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. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2022-0330-CP, The assessment of specimen adequacy or satisfactoriness is a key component of a Papanicolaou (Pap) test interpretation. The criteria for specimen adequacy were initially established under the Bethesda System (TBS) [...]

* 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., The practice of gynecologic cytology is a highly regulated field. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) set several mandates for gynecologic cytology. (1) These included the prospective rescreening [...]