Time consumed by microscopic and nonmicroscopic tasks in image-assisted gynecologic screening: Implications for workload assessment.

BACKGROUND: Gynecologic screening cytology is a complex task that includes microscopic activities and nonmicroscopic activities. The authors sought to determine the amount and percentage of time that cytotechnologists spend on those activities using the ThinPrep imaging system. METHODS: In arm 1, a total of 550 consecutive unselected slides were reviewed by 11 cytotechnologists, and the time used for individual subtasks of the screening process was recorded. In arm 2, a total of 20 unselected slides were each screened by 10 different cytotechnologists (200 slides in total) and total screening times and full manual review (FMR) times were recorded. RESULTS: In arm 1, cases with and without FMR required an average of 5.6 minutes and 3.0 minutes, respectively, to screen. Overall, review of fields of view (FOVs) took 95 seconds. FMR took an average of 2.6 minutes. The average screening times for FOV-only cases was significantly longer than the US Food and Drug Administration/Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (FDA/CMS) workload limit of 2.4 minutes (P = .005). However, in arm 2, the time needed to screen a case increased by an average of 1 minute compared with arm 1, including 1.1 minute for FOV-only cases and >2 minutes for FMR plus FOV cases. Approximately 100% of cases screened as FOV only exceeded the FDA/CMS workload limit of 2.4 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA/CMS workload limits for FOV-only cases appears to significantly underestimate the time needed to screen those cases, but seems to be appropriate for the majority of FMR plus FOV cases. Approximately 60% and 30% of the time designated to screening slides was spent on nonmicroscopic activities for FOV-only cases and FMR cases, respectively. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:501-7. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Atypical endometrial cells and atypical glandular cells favor endometrial origin in Papanicolaou cervicovaginal tests: Correlation with histologic follow-up and abnormal clinical presentations.

The 2001 Bethesda system recommends further classifying atypical glandular cells (AGCs) as either endocervical or endometrial origin. Numerous studies have investigated the clinical significance of AGC. In this study, we investigated the incidence of clinically significant lesions among women with liquid-based Papanicolaou cervicovaginal (Pap) interpretations of atypical endometrial cells (AEMs) or AGC favor endometrial origin (AGC-EM). More importantly, we correlated patients of AEM or AGC-EM with their clinical presentations to determine if AEM/AGC-EM combined with abnormal vaginal bleeding is associated with a higher incidence of significant endometrial pathology. All liquid-based Pap tests with an interpretation of AEM and AGC-EM from July, 2004 through June, 2009 were retrieved from the database. Women with an interpretation of atypical endocervical cells, AGC, favor endocervical origin or AGC, favor neoplastic were not included in the study. The most severe subsequent histologic diagnoses were recorded for each patient. During this 5-year period, we accessioned 332,470 Pap tests of which 169 (0.05%) were interpreted as either AEM or AGC-EM. Of the 169 patients, 133 had histologic follow-up within the health care system. The patients ranged in age from 21 to 71 years old (mean 49.7). On follow-up histology, 27 (20.3%) had neoplastic/preneoplastic uterine lesions. Among them, 20 patients were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma (18 endometrial, 1 endocervical, and 1 metastatic colorectal), 3 with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, and 4 with endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. All patients with significant endometrial pathology, except one, were over 40 years old, and 22 of 25 patients reported abnormal vaginal bleeding at the time of endometrial biopsy or curettage. This study represents a large series of women with liquid-based Pap test interpretations of AEM and AGC-EM with clinical follow-up. Significant preneoplastic or neoplastic endometrial lesions were identified in 20.3% of patients. Patients with Pap test interpretations of AEM or AGC-EM and the clinical presentation of abnormal vaginal bleeding should be followed closely.