Search

ContextThe College of American Pathologists periodically surveys laboratories to determine changes in cytopathology practices. We report the results of a 2011 gynecologic cytology survey.ObjectiveTo provide a cross-sectional survey of gynecologic cytology practices in 2010.DesignIn 2011, a survey was sent to 1604 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists gynecologic cytology interlaboratory comparison education program and proficiency testing programs requesting data from 2010 on the following topics: terminology/reporting, cytotechnologist workload, quality assurance, reagents, and ancillary testing.ResultsSix hundred and twenty-five laboratories (39%) replied to the survey. The nonstandard use of "low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion" is used by most laboratories to report the presence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with possibility of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Most laboratories also report the presence or absence of cells from the transformation zone. Most respondents do not limit cytotechnologist screening workload during the work shift. Only about one-third of laboratories (188 of 582; 32%) use image-assisted screening devices. Rapid prescreening as a quality assurance measure is used by only 3.5% (21 of 594) of the laboratories. When used for screening, most laboratories use the imager for retrospective review of slides to detect human locator and interpretive errors. Most laboratories receive both liquid-based cytology samples (mainly ThinPrep, Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) and conventional Papanicolaou tests. Expiration dates of liquid-based cytology test vials are not usually recorded.ConclusionsThe field of gynecologic cytology is evolving rapidly. These survey results offer a snapshot of national gynecologic cytology practices in 2010.

ContextIn cytology proficiency testing (PT), participants fail for incorrectly interpreting a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or cancer (HSIL+) Papanicolaou test result as negative. This penalty may lead to a false-positive interpretation of negative slides as HSIL+ to avoid failure.ObjectiveTo investigate factors related to false-positive responses in a PT versus an educational environment.DesignWe analyzed 420,079 responses from 9414 validated negative reference slides in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) and compared them with responses from the Gynecologic Cytology Proficiency Testing Program for the percentage of false-positive (HSIL+) interpretations in each of 7 negative subcategories. We evaluated the influence of preparation type (ThinPrep, SurePath, and conventional Papanicolaou test), participant type (pathologist or cytotechnologist), and program time interval (preproficiency test or PT) on a false-positive response.ResultsReference diagnosis and participant type, but not preparation type, were statistically correlated to false-positive responses. The interaction between program time interval and participant type was also significant. Pathologists had higher rates of false-positive results on preproficiency test (1.2% [800 of 68,690]) than they did on PT (0.8% [993 of 129,857]). Cytotechnologists had no differences between program time intervals (preproficiency, 0.9% [515 of 63,281] versus PT, 1.0 [1231 of 121,621]; P = .91). Negative subcategories frequently mistaken for HSIL+ were reparative changes (4.7% [427 of 9069]), atrophic vaginitis (1.8% [18 of 987]), and negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (1.2% [2143 of 178,651]), but during PT, false-positive rates were significantly increased only for the negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy and herpes simplex virus (P < .001).ConclusionsPathologists had lower false-positive rates in the Gynecologic Cytology Proficiency Testing Program than they did in PAP Education, but participants were more likely to report a false-positive response (HSIL+) for negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy and herpes simplex virus in the Gynecologic Cytology Proficiency Test Program.

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.

* Context.--Reports for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and histologic findings are rare in China. Objective.--To analyze the correlation findings of ASC-US cytology with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test and histopathologic follow-ups. Design.--ASC-US cases with hrHPV test and histologic follow-ups between 2011 and 2015 were analyzed at a College of American Pathologists-certified laboratory. Results.--A total of 2 206 588 Papanicolaou (Pap) tests were performed, including 1 513 265 liquid-based cytology preparations (68.58%), and 693 323 conventional Pap tests (31.42%). The overall ASC-US reporting rate was 3.77% (83 199 of 2 206 588), with the highest in women aged 40 to 49 years. Of 18 574 women with ASC-US Pap and HPV testing, the hrHPV positivity rate was 34.98% (6498 of 18 574) with the highest in women younger than 30 years. A total of 6012 women with ASC-US Pap test findings had histologic follow-ups within 6 months; the overall cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 and above (CIN2+) detection rate was 7.87% (473 of 6012). One thousand nine hundred nine women with ASC-US Pap and HPV testing had histologic results. CIN2+ lesion was found in 13.98% (124 of 887) of women with ASC-US Pap/HPV-positive test results, significantly higher than 2.84% (29 of 1022) for women with ASC-US Pap/HPV-negative test results. Cervical squamous cell carcinoma was found in 3.95% (35 of 887) of women with ASC-US/HPV-positive test results. Conclusions.--This is one of the largest studies to investigate HPV and histologic follow-up findings in women with ASC-US in China. The ASC-US reporting rate, HPV positivity rate, and CIN2+ detection rate were all within the currently recognized benchmark ranges. These findings may contribute to establishing a baseline for better understanding of the status of cervical screening in China. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0244-OA, Cervical cancer remains an important public health problem in Chinese women, especially in women living in rural China. (1) While opportunistic cervical screening services are now available in urban areas, [...]

* 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 [...]

Objectives Our aim was to explore the performance of TRPS1 as an immunohistochemical diagnostic marker; find the optimal conditions for its use in breast carcinomas, especially triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs); and compare its results in carcinomas of a select few organ sites, with an emphasis on gynecologic tumors. Methods Tissue microarrays from breast carcinomas (n = 197), endometrial adenocarcinomas (n = 69), ovarian tumors (n = 250), vulvar squamous cell carcinomas (n = 97), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (n = 20), and gastric adenocarcinomas (n = 12) were stained with TRPS1 using 2 different conditions (protocol 1: high pH; protocol 2: low pH). Breast carcinomas consisted of hormone receptor (HR)–positive/ERBB2 (formerly HER2 or HER2/neu)–negative (n = 53) samples, HR-positive/ERBB2-positive (n = 6) samples, and TNBCs (n = 138). Results Comparing TRPS1 results in breast carcinomas vs tumors from other organ sites, the sensitivity of TRPS1 was 91% and 87%, respectively, while the specificity was 66% and 74% for protocol 1 and 2, respectively. For TNBCs vs gynecologic tumors, the sensitivity of TRPS1 was 89% and 85%, respectively, while the specificity was 65% and 73%, respectively. Conclusions TRPS1 stains approximately 90% of breast carcinomas but also up to 71% of endometrial carcinomas, albeit with a weaker median expression. Our data show that although TRPS1 is a highly sensitive marker for TNBCs, it is not as highly specific as previously reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]