Supernatant fluid from endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for rapid next-generation sequencing.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing demand to optimize the workflow and maximize tissue available for next-generation sequencing (NGS) for non-small cell carcinoma. We looked at transbronchial needle endobronchial ultrasound-guided bronchoscopy with transbronchial needle aspiration samples and evaluated the performance of supernatant (SN) fluid processed from a dedicated aspirate collected for NGS testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen samples were collected and processed using a new workflow. Five aspirates were collected in formalin. One additional dedicated pass was collected fresh and centrifuged. The resulting cell pellet was added to formalin for cell block (CB) processing. DNA and RNA were extracted from concentrated SN for targeted testing using the Oncomine Precision Assay (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA). NGS results from the corresponding CB samples were used as "controls" for comparison. RESULTS: Thirty-one mutations were detected in SN (Table 1). The most frequently mutated genes were TP53 (35%), EGFR (23%), KRAS (13%), CTNNB1 (6%), and ERBB2 (6%). There was 100% concordance between the mutations detected in SN and corresponding CBs with comparable variant allele frequencies. Turnaround time of NGS results was 1 day for SN compared to 4-10 days for CB. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to demonstrate the usefulness of SN for reliable rapid molecular results. We successfully incorporated the workflow for tissue handling and processing among our clinical, cytopathology, and molecular teams. Molecular results were available at the same time as the cytologic diagnosis, allowing for timely reporting of a comprehensive diagnosis. This approach is particularly useful in patients with advanced disease requiring urgent management.

Recommendations for Use of p16/Ki67 Dual Stain for Management of Individuals Testing Positive for Human Papillomavirus.

OBJECTIVES: The Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee developed recommendations for dual stain (DS) testing with CINtec PLUS Cytology for use of DS to triage high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive results. METHODS: Risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse were calculated according to DS results among individuals testing HPV-positive using data from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California cohort and the STudying Risk to Improve DisparitiES study in Mississippi. Management recommendations were based on clinical action thresholds developed for the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Resource usage metrics were calculated to support decision-making. Risk estimates in relation to clinical action thresholds were reviewed and used as the basis for draft recommendations. After an open comment period, recommendations were finalized and ratified through a vote by the Consensus Stakeholder Group. RESULTS: For triage of positive HPV results from screening with primary HPV testing (with or without genotyping) or with cytology cotesting, colposcopy is recommended for individuals testing DS-positive. One-year follow-up with HPV-based testing is recommended for individuals testing DS-negative, except for HPV16- and HPV18-positive results, or high-grade cytology in cotesting, where immediate colposcopy referral is recommended. Risk estimates were similar between the Kaiser Permanente Northern California and STudying Risk to Improve DisparitiES populations. In general, resource usage metrics suggest that compared with cytology, DS requires fewer colposcopies and detects cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse earlier. CONCLUSIONS: Dual stain testing with CINtec PLUS Cytology is acceptable for triage of HPV-positive test results. Risk estimates are portable across different populations.

2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines: Updates Through 2023.

ABSTRACT: This Research Letter summarizes all updates to the 2019 Guidelines through September 2023, including: endorsement of the 2021 Opportunistic Infections guidelines for HIV+ or immunosuppressed patients; clarification of use of human papillomavirus testing alone for patients undergoing observation for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2; revision of unsatisfactory cytology management; clarification that 2012 guidelines should be followed for patients aged 25 years and older screened with cytology only; management of patients for whom colposcopy was recommended but not completed; clarification that after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+, 3 negative human papillomavirus tests or cotests at 6, 18, and 30 months are recommended before the patient can return to a 3-year testing interval; and clarification of postcolposcopy management of minimally abnormal results.

The combined finding of HPV 16, 18, or 45 and cytologic Atypical Glandular Cells (AGC) indicates a greatly elevated risk of in situ and invasive cervical adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cervical screening has not effectively controlled cervical adenocarcinoma (AC). Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended for cervical screening but the optimal management of HPV-positive individuals to prevent AC remains a question. Cytology and HPV typing are two triage options to predict the risk of AC. We combined two potential biomarkers (atypical glandular cell, AGC, cytology and HPV-types 16, 18, or 45) to assess their joint effect on detecting AC. METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) used triennial co-testing with cytology and HPV testing (positive/negative) for routine cervical screening between 2003 and 2020. HPV typing of a sample of residual HPV test specimens was performed on a separate cohort selected from KPNC (Persistence and Progression, PaP, cohort). We compared risk of prevalent and incident histologic AC/AIS (adenocarcinoma in situ) associated with preceding combinations of cytologic results and HPV typing. Risk of squamous cell cancer (SCC)/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) (SCC/CIN3) was also included for comparison. RESULTS: Among HPV-positive individuals in PaP cohort, 99% of prevalent AC and 96% of AIS were linked to HPV-types 16, 18, or 45 (denoted HPV 16/18/45). Although rare (0.09% of screening population), the concurrent detection of HPV 16/18/45 with AGC cytology predicted a highly elevated relative risk of underlying histologic AC/AIS; the absolute risk of diagnosing AC/AIS was 12% and odds ratio (OR) was 1341 (95%CI:495-3630) compared to patients with other high-risk HPV types and normal cytology. Cumulatively (allowing non-concurrent results), approximately one-third of the AC/AIS cases ever had HPV 16/18/45 and AGC cytology (OR = 1785; 95%CI:872-3656). AGC was not as strongly associated with SCC/CIN3. CONCLUSION: Detection of HPV 16/18/45 positivity elevates risk of adenocarcinoma, particularly if AGC cytology is also found.

Role of renal mass biopsy for diagnosis and management: Review of current trends and future directions.

The frequency of detection of renal masses has increased over recent decades, causing a concurrent increase in early intervention by surgery. Growing recognition that this approach was contributing to overtreatment led to the broader use of preoperative renal mass biopsy (RMB) by core biopsy and/or fine-needle aspiration. Because more options for management, such as active surveillance and personalized therapy, are becoming increasingly available, a diagnosis by RMB is becoming a valuable tool for risk stratification and clinical decision making. Guidelines from various professional organizations have outlined situations in which RMB should be used, and it has been shown to be safe and effective. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) using touch preparations of core biopsy or fine-needle aspiration smears provides an immediate assessment of adequacy and appropriate triage. ROSE also ensures sufficient material to perform immunohistochemistry and molecular studies for more accurate characterization of renal masses and personalized treatment. The integral role of cytopathology laboratories in precision medicine can also be successfully used in optimizing the workup of RMB from ROSE to final diagnosis, prognostication, and personalized management of kidney tumors. Herein, the authors review their extensive experience working together with interventional radiology and urology colleagues to use core biopsy and ROSE at the time of RMB for diagnosis and management of these lesions.

Harmonization of training, training program requirements, board certification, and the practice of cytopathology: data from the American Board of Pathology surveys.

INTRODUCTION: The American Board of Pathology (ABPath) has ongoing efforts to better align certification with graduate medical education, training program requirements, and pathology practice. The present study focused on the subspecialty of cytopathology. We evaluated the current content and scope of fellowship programs, practice patterns and needs of diplomates, and program director (PD) and diplomate perceptions of the ABPath certification examination to identify gaps and provide an evidence base to guide harmonization in these areas. METHODS: Two surveys were administered: one directed to PDs of all 93 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) cytopathology fellowship programs and the other to cytopathology diplomates submitting continuing certification reporting to the ABPath. RESULTS: Most (86%) cytopathology diplomates work in smaller groups. Only 11% do >50% cytopathology in practice. Diplomates' cytopathology-related practice tasks varied, as did their perception of the content of fellowship training aligning with practice needs. In fellowship training programs, the specimen types, volumes, techniques of specimen acquisition, and graduated responsibility varied significantly. We identified areas in which current training and certification requirements are challenging for some programs. Diplomates and PDs had differing perceptions of the cytopathology examination; diplomates regarded image-based and microscopic glass slide questions as the best assessment of their knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: First, fellowship training programs could benefit from shared resources and should provide more graduated responsibility for fellows. Second, the ACGME Review Committee could consider this data in future program requirement revisions. Finally, information from these surveys will be useful as the ABPath adjusts certification examination content and delivery.

ACGME Milestones 2.0: why and what's new for cytopathology?

BACKGROUND: Primary stakeholders in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones Project are: ACGME, Residency Programs, Residents, Fellowship Programs, Fellows, and Certification Boards. The intent of the Milestones is to describe the educational and professional developmental trajectory of a trainee from the first stages of their postgraduate education through the completion of their clinical training. The Milestones 2.0 project includes changes made based on experience with Milestones 1.0. METHODS: The ACGME solicited volunteers to participate in the development of subspecialty Milestones 2.0. The workgroup was charged with reviewing/making any additions to the four "Harmonized Milestones", developing subspecialty specific milestones for the Patient Care and Medical Knowledge competencies, and creating a supplemental guide. The Milestones were finalized following review of input from an open comment period. RESULTS: The Cytopathology Milestones 2.0 will go into effect July 2021. They include additional subcompetencies in the 4 harmonized competency areas and cytopathology-specific edits to the patient care and medical knowledge subcompetencies. Although the number of subcompetencies has increased from 18 to 21, within each subcompetency, the number of milestone trajectories has decreased. Additionally, within each subcompetency, the wording has been streamlined. A supplemental guide was created and Milestones 1.0 were compared to 2.0; however, curriculum mapping has been left to programs to develop. CONCLUSIONS: The ultimate goal of the Cytopathology Milestones 2.0 is to provide better real-time documentation of the progress of cytopathology fellows. The expected outcome is to produce highly competent cytopathologists, improving the care they provide, regardless of the program at which they trained.

Cytopathology fellowship recruitment: Has the time come to consider a unified approach?

INTRODUCTION: Cytopathology (CYP) fellowship training is a critical component of maintaining a skilled group of cytopathologists. For years, the recruitment process for CYP fellowship programs has remained unchanged, with individual programs outlining their own requirements and timeline, and applicants bearing the cost of travel and dealing with the variable processes outlined by individual programs. However, there has been renewed interest in analyzing the recruitment process for CYP fellowships to look for areas of potential improvement and uniformity. METHODS: With the goal of gauging the interest of CYP fellowship program directors (PDs) in a more unified approach to recruitment or a formal match process, the ASC Cytopathology Program Directors Committee (CPDC) surveyed PDs via SurveyMonkey and organized special webinars with polling over a 4-year time frame (2017-2021), and examined Qualtrics survey data collected by the American Board of Pathology (ABPath) in 2020. RESULTS: The response rate for PDs was greatest in a formal survey by the ABPath (66 respondents; 71% of PDs) conducted in 2020, and lower for an ASC survey in 2021 (61 respondents, 66% of PDs) and 2017 (19 respondents; 21% of PDs) and two recent ASC webinars (10 and 26 respondents; 11% and 28% of PDs). Support for a fellowship match process varied from 29% to 77%, respondent uncertainty ranged from 13% to 50%, and a lack of support ranged from 10% to 60%. In aggregate, approximately 56% of respondents would be in favor of a more standardized process. Recently, after hearing about other fellowships experimenting with a standardized process, the interest in a unified approach doubled from approximately 29% to 60%, and the percentage of PDs with uncertainty decreased from 50% to 26%. In the most recent follow up survey, interest reached the highest level of 77% among PDs. CONCLUSIONS: Herein we present several years of feedback from the CYP fellowship PD community regarding a more standardized approach to CYP fellowship recruitment, culminating in the latest survey with 77% of CYP fellowship PDs expressing interest. Thus, details about what a unified timeframe may look like for CYP fellowships is presented to show how this may improve the recruitment process for the mutual benefit for programs and applicants.

Liver Pathology and SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Formalin-Fixed Tissue of Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a global health threat and a significant source of human morbidity and mortality. While the virus primarily induces lung injury, it also has been reported to cause hepatic sequelae. METHODS: We aimed to detect the virus in formalin-fixed tissue blocks and document the liver injury patterns in patients with COVID-19 compared with a control group. RESULTS: We were able to detect viral RNA in the bronchioalveolar cell blocks (12/12, 100%) and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue of the lung (8/8, 100%) and liver (4/9, 44%) of patients with COVID-19. Although the peak values of the main liver enzymes and bilirubin were higher in the patients with COVID-19 compared with the control group, the differences were not significant. The main histologic findings were minimal to focal mild portal tract chronic inflammation (7/8, 88%, P < .05) and mild focal lobular activity (6/8, 75%, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: We found that most patients who died of COVID-19 had evidence of mild focal hepatitis clinically and histologically; however, the virus was detected in less than half of the cases.

Assessing the diagnostic accuracy for pleomorphic adenoma and Warthin tumor by employing the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology: An international, multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) has established distinct diagnostic categories for reporting cytopathological findings, and each is associated with a defined risk of malignancy (ROM). However, the ROM is applied at the overall category level and is not specific for particular morphological entities within a category. Here, the diagnostic performance of the MSRSGC for pleomorphic adenoma (PA) and Warthin tumor (WT) is reported. METHODS: The pathology archives of 11 institutions from 4 countries were retrospectively searched to identify all salivary gland fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies with a differential or definitive diagnosis of PA or WT and all resection specimens with a diagnosis of PA or WT; only paired cases were included. All FNA diagnoses were retrospectively classified according to the MSRSGC. RESULTS: A total of 1250 cases met the inclusion criteria, and they included 898 PA cases and 352 WT cases. The ROM in the benign neoplasm category was 3.0% and 1.3% for cases with a differential or definitive diagnosis of PA and WT, respectively. The ROM in the salivary gland neoplasm with uncertain malignant potential (SUMP) category was 2.7% and 18.8% for PA and WT, respectively (P = .0277). The diagnostic accuracy for PA and WT was 95.1% and 96.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy for PA and WT on FNA is high. Furthermore, these findings highlight the difference in the ROMs associated with 2 specific differential diagnoses in the SUMP category: basaloid neoplasms and oncocytoid neoplasms.

Moving forward-the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors and beyond: implications and suggestions for laboratories.

The 2019 ASCCP Risk Based Management Consensus Guidelines for prevention of cervical cancer promote clinical management recommendations aligned with our increased understanding of HPV biology and cervical carcinogenesis. They employ HPV-based testing as the basis for risk estimation, allow for personalized risk-based management by incorporating knowledge of current results with prior results, and streamline incorporation of new test methods as they are validated. They continue to support the principles of "equal management for equal risk" and "balancing harms and benefits" adopted in the 2012 version of the guidelines. These updated guidelines will be able to adjust for decreasing CIN3+ risks as more patients who received HPV vaccination reach screening age. Pathology organizations were closely involved in the development of these guidelines. Herein the pathologists who served as representatives to the 2019 ASCCP guidelines steering committee and workgroups, summarize the changes that are relevant to laboratories, pathologists, and cytotechnologists. Prior relevant screening and reporting recommendations that have not been widely and/or inconsistently adopted by laboratories are also discussed and considerations for modification of laboratory practices offered.

Incorporating Stakeholder Feedback in Guidelines Development for the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests.

OBJECTIVE: The 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines present a paradigm shift from results- to risk-based management. Patient and provider factors can affect guideline adoption. We sought feedback from stakeholders to inform guideline development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To solicit provider feedback, we surveyed attendees at the 2019 ASCCP annual meeting regarding readiness to adopt proposed changes and used a web-based public comment period to gauge agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines. We elicited patient feedback via a brief survey on preferences around proposed recommendations for treatment without biopsy. Surveys and public comment included both closed-ended and free-text items. Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative results were analyzed using content analysis. Results were incorporated into guideline development in real time. RESULTS: Surveys indicated that 98% of providers currently evaluate their patients' past results to determine management; 88% felt formally incorporating history into management would represent an improvement in care. Most providers supported expedited treatment without biopsy: 22% currently perform expedited treatment and 60% were willing to do so. Among patients, 41% preferred expedited treatment, 32% preferred biopsy before treatment, and the remainder were undecided. Responses from the public comment period included agreement/disagreement with preliminary guidelines, reasons for disagreement, and suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the development of the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. Proposed recommendations with less than two-thirds agreement in the public comment period were considered for revision. Findings underscore the importance of stakeholder feedback in developing guidelines that meet the needs of patients and providers.

Limited Tissue Samples: Hematopoietic Lesions - Three Case Examples of Judicious Use of Limited Material.

In the era of smaller and smaller biopsies submitted to pathology departments for diagnosis and the advent of personalized medicine, it has become imperative to efficiently and effectively use patient material to reach individualized, actionable diagnoses. The use of fine needle aspirates and core biopsies as acceptable methods for obtaining sufficient material for hematopoietic neoplasms under nonemergent conditions is debatable. There are, however, scenarios where only limited material is obtainable due to anatomic site, size of the lesion or condition of the patient. In these types of settings, thoughtful approaches and unconventional means are often necessary to reach a diagnosis. In this article, we describe three such scenarios and the unique tactics taken in each to obtain a personalized actionable diagnosis.