External quality assurance in nongynecologic cytology: The Australasian experience.

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Cytopathology Quality Assurance Program has operated an external quality assurance program in nongynecologic cytopathology since 1993. Glass slide preparations of a wide range of nongynecologic cases were circulated to approximately 200 cytopathology laboratories in 16 countries. METHODS: General nongynecologic cytology cases were manufactured from residual specimens after routine diagnosis. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cases were made by sampling fresh tissue and making direct specimens. The majority of cases consisted of both air-dried and fixed preparations. Results returned to laboratories included illustrated case discussions highlighting diagnostic features, key differential diagnoses, and useful adjunctive tests. RESULTS: The current study reviewed >22,000 results for 123 nongynecologic cases. Cases found to cause the most diagnostic difficulties included serous effusion cases with metastatic carcinoma in a dispersed pattern, well-differentiated carcinoma, and cellular reactive cases; urine specimens with sparse malignant cells; reactive pneumocytes in a bronchoalveolar lavage; breast FNA cases with papillary lesions; gestational specimens; and fibroadenoma. FNA specimens from the lung and thyroid, particularly papillary thyroid carcinoma, generally were well reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of multiple preparations of the same specimen has allowed interlaboratory comparison, and the quality assurance program has played an educational role as well as informing the laboratory accreditation process. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:349-361. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Performance measures for Australian laboratories reporting cervical cytology: a decade of data 1998-2008.

AIM: Performance measures for Australian laboratories reporting cervical cytology are a set of quantifiable measures relating to the profile and accuracy of reporting. This study reviews aggregate data collected over the ten years in which participation in the performance measures has been mandatory. METHODS: Laboratories submit annual data on performance measures relating to the profile of reporting, including reporting rates for technically unsatisfactory specimens, high grade or possible high grade abnormalities and abnormal reports. Cytology-histology correlation data and review findings of negative smears reported from women with histological high grade disease are also collected. Suggested acceptable standards are set for each measure. This study reviews the aggregate data submitted by all laboratories for the years 1998-2008 and examines trends in reporting and the performance of laboratories against the suggested standards. RESULTS: The performance of Australian laboratories has shown continued improvement over the study period. There has been a fall in the proportion of laboratories with data outside the acceptable standard range in all performance measures. Laboratories are reporting a greater proportion of specimens as definite or possible high grade abnormality. This is partly attributable to an increase in the proportion of abnormal results classified as high grade or possible high grade abnormality. Despite this, the positive predictive value for high grade and possible high grade abnormalities has continued to rise. CONCLUSION: Performance measures for cervical cytology have provided a valuable addition to external quality assurance procedures in Australia. They have documented continued improvements in the aggregate performance, as well as providing benchmarking data and goals for acceptable performance for individual laboratories.

A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and demonstrate efficient methods to estimate the relative true positive and false positive rates of two cervical screening tests (conventional cytology and PAPNET). METHODS: We designed the study to meet stringent methodologic criteria for comparison of two tests while simultaneously minimizing the numbers requiring reference standard verification. We used a cytology reference standard and also assessed histology when available. For the primary analysis, slides with discordant results around the test threshold (CIN 1) were reviewed by a panel of two cytopathologists, blind to previous results, to establish the reference standard result (reference standard threshold for abnormality CIN2). Where histology was available, a secondary analysis was conducted with the reference standard based on the highest grade lesion (either cytology or histology). RESULTS: Among 21,747 Pap smears, 372 were discordant around the test threshold, requiring verification. In the primary analysis PAPNET detected four more true positives than conventional reading; difference in sensitivity 1.29% (95%CI -5.79 to 8.36%, P=.40). There were two extra false positives using PAPNET; difference in the false positive rate 0.0097% (95%CI -0.122 to 0.142%, P=.47). The results of the combined cytology and histology analysis were similar; difference in true positive rate 0.29% (95%CI -6.76 to 7.34%, P=.50) and difference in false positive rate 0.024% (95%CI -0.098 to 0.15%, P=.39). CONCLUSION: This is an efficient and valid study design where the objective is to examine the comparative accuracy of two tests. The design provides an efficient means of estimating the difference between true positive and false positive detection by the two tests, which often is sufficient information for policy decisions.