The role of monitoring interpretive rates, concordance between cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations before sign-out, and turnaround time in gynecologic cytology quality assurance: findings from the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference working group 1.

CONTEXT: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) conducted a national survey of gynecologic cytology quality assurance (QA) practices. Experts in gynecologic cytology were asked to join 5 working groups that studied the survey data on different aspects of QA. Evaluating the survey data and follow-up questions online, together with a review of pertinent literature, the working groups developed a series of preliminary statements on good laboratory practices in cytology QA. These were presented at a consensus conference and electronic voting occurred. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a set of QA monitors in gynecologic cytology. Working group 1 evaluated (1) monitoring interpretive rate categories for Papanicolaou tests (Pap tests), (2) concordance of cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations before sign-out, and (3) turnaround time for Pap tests. DATA SOURCES: The statements are based on a survey of gynecologic cytology QA practice patterns and of opinions from working group members and consensus conference attendees. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this process demonstrate the current state of practice patterns in gynecologic cytology QA. Monitoring interpretive rates for all Bethesda System categories is potentially useful, and it is most useful to monitor interpretive rates for cytotechnologists individually and in comparison to the entire laboratory. Laboratories need to determine what level of discrepancy between cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations of Pap tests is important to track. Laboratories should consider formalizing procedures and policies to adjudicate such discrepant interpretations. Turnaround time should be monitored in gynecologic cytology, but individual laboratories should determine how to measure and use turnaround time internally.

The multiple faces of carcinoid tumor: performance characteristics of low-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma metastatic to the liver in an educational interlaboratory slide comparison program.

CONTEXT: Cytologic features of low-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma are well described in primary sites. There are fewer reports of the cytologic features specific to metastatic liver lesions or the frequency of misdiagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To identify discriminating cytologic features and characterize the rate of misdiagnosis of low-grade neuroendocrine tumors metastatic to the liver in an educational interlaboratory slide comparison program. DESIGN: Glass slides with the specific reference diagnosis of metastatic low-grade neuroendocrine tumor involving liver were circulated to 175 laboratories, with 575 participant responses in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology. Eight specific cytologic features were assessed to identify predictors of poor performance (>10% misdiagnosis). RESULTS: There was an exact match diagnosis in 496 of 575 responses (86%); 555 of 575 responses (96.5%) were correctly identified as malignant. Incorrect responses included adenocarcinoma (27), hepatocellular neoplasm (21), small cell carcinoma (11), benign neoplasm not otherwise specified (6), benign liver (3) and inflammation (3). Three features were significantly associated with the misdiagnosis of adenocarcinoma: presence of large clusters (P = .02), lack of single-cell pattern (P = .02), and lack of stripped nuclei (P = .01). CONCLUSION: Participants often recognize metastatic low-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma in an educational glass-slide program. Adenocarcinoma was the most common incorrect diagnosis, especially in the presence of large cellular clusters or absence of a single-cell pattern or stripped nuclei.

Granulomatous inflammation-an underestimated cause of false-positive diagnoses in lung fine-needle aspirates: observations from the college of american pathologists nongynecologic cytopathology interlaboratory comparison program.

CONTEXT: The false-positive rate for fine-needle aspirates of the lung has been cited as less than 1% for granulomatous inflammation, comprising one of the known causes of false-positive diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of false-positive diagnoses of granulomatous inflammation for lung fine-needle aspirates by assessing the false-positive response rate in the context of the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Interlaboratory Comparison Program. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective review of 1092 participant responses for lung fine-needle aspirate challenges with the reference diagnosis of specific infections/granulomatous inflammation from 1998 to 2008 from the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Interlaboratory Comparison Program. False-positive rates by participant type (pathologist versus cytotechnologist), general diagnosis category, reference diagnosis, and preparation type were analyzed for the pathologists' responses. RESULTS: Of the 502 general category responses for pathologists, 428 (85.3%) were benign, 55 (11%) were malignant, and 19 (3.8%) were suspicious. There was no difference in the false-positive rate between preparations (P  =  .76) or participants (P  =  .39). Of those responses by pathologists that were benign, only 68.7% (292 of 425) were an exact match to granulomatous inflammation. Non-small cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and squamous carcinoma represented 64% of false-positive/suspicious responses, while small cell carcinoma and carcinoid comprised 13%. CONCLUSION: In an interlaboratory comparison program, granulomatous inflammation represents an important cause of false-positive/suspicious responses in lung fine-needle aspirates (14.8%) and is much higher than false-positive rates reported historically in clinical studies. These results highlight the importance of granulomatous inflammation as a mimic of carcinoma.

Comparison of ThinPrep preparations to other preparation types in gastrointestinal cytology: observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology.

CONTEXT: Differences in participant responses for ThinPrep (TP) and non-ThinPrep (NTP) preparations for gastrointestinal cytology challenges, which circulated in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology (CAP NGC), may help to identify performance variations between preparation types. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of TP-prepared slides of gastrointestinal exfoliative cytology specimens to that of NTP preparations in the CAP NGC program. DESIGN: Participant responses between 2000 and 2007 were evaluated for esophageal wash/brush, gastric wash/brush, and biliary tract brush specimens with a reference diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, carcinoid, or spindle cell neoplasm. ThinPrep challenges were compared with NTP preparations (conventional smears, cytospins) for discordant responses. RESULTS: In all, 6023 pathologist responses and 3825 cytotechnologist responses were reviewed. Non-ThinPrep preparations comprised 93% (n = 11 588) of the challenges, while 7% (n = 912) were TP material. A match for a "positive/suspicious" diagnosis was seen in 88.5% of NTP and 95.9% of TP preparations (P < .001). These results were statistically significant when the specific reference diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (P < .001). Overall performance of cytotechnologists was not different from that of pathologists (89.2% versus 89.0%; P = .75). Cytotechnologists had better performance for detecting squamous cell carcinoma (96.3% versus 92.6%; P < .001), while pathologists had better performance for detecting spindle cell neoplasm (79.7% versus 42.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ThinPrep preparations performed significantly better than NTP preparations in gastrointestinal cytology specimens circulated in an interlaboratory comparison program. Performance varied by reference interpretation, with the best performance for the interpretation of adenocarcinoma. Cytotechnologists and pathologists performed at the same level overall, but with differences for the diagnosis of spindle cell neoplasm and squamous carcinoma.

Do liquid-based preparations of urinary cytology perform differently than classically prepared cases? Observations from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology.

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.

Guidelines for the reporting of nongynecologic cytopathology specimens.

CONTEXT: Gynecologic cytology terminology and report formatting have been nationally standardized since the implementation of The Bethesda System of 1988, but standard reporting for nongynecologic cytology has never been formally addressed on the same scale. OBJECTIVES: To promote patient safety through uniform reporting in nongynecologic cytology (including fine-needle aspiration cytology) and to improve communication between laboratories and health care providers. DATA SOURCES: Sources include the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Resource Committee; the College of American Pathologists Council on Scientific Affairs Ad Hoc Committee on Pathology Report Standardization; the College of American Pathologists Laboratory Accreditation Program inspection checklists; the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the major elements of quality nongynecologic cytology reporting and discuss areas of controversy in cytology reporting. Standardized nongynecologic specimen reporting will expand the concept of common report elements already widely implemented in gynecologic cytology reporting. The intent is to improve communication with the health care team while remaining in compliance with federal mandates and accreditation guidelines.