Review of the impact of the International System for Serous Fluid Cytopathology.

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytology (TIS) has been proposed by an expert working team composed of the International Academy of Cytology and the American Society of Cytopathology, following an international survey. Since its introduction, the TIS has gained worldwide acceptance, and this review aims to assess its global impact. A literature search revealed 25 studies which have presented data on the impact of the TIS. Most of them provide data, including risk of malignancy (ROM) for each diagnostic category, separately for pleural, peritoneal and pericardial effusions, while a few do not separate them. A few studies focus on specific diagnoses like mesothelioma on specific types of fluids or more specific issues like the optimal fluid volume for cytology or interobserver variability. A synopsis of the data from the literature search is presented in four tables. The ROM assessment is discussed, as well as interobserver variability and the use of ancillary diagnostic immunochemistry. In conclusion, our review of the published data suggests that the TIS is a valid classification scheme that has been widely accepted by pathologists globally, is highly reproducible and makes a valuable contribution to clinical therapeutic management.

Optimal Volume Assessment for Serous Fluid Cytology.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the optimal volume of serous fluid needed for accurate diagnosis using The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS), as well as to provide information on the distribution of serous effusion cases in the TIS categories (ND: non-diagnostic, NFM: negative for malignancy, AUS: atypia of undetermined significance, SFM: suspicious for malignancy, MAL: malignant) and relevant epidemiological data. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2340 serous effusion cases (pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial) from two hospitals between 2018 and 2020 was conducted. TIS categories were assigned to each case, and for 1181 cases, these were correlated with the volume of the analyzed fluid. RESULTS: Our study found statistically significant differences in volume distributions between certain TIS categories. Statistically lower volumes were observed in NFM compared to MAL, in UNCERTAIN (ND, AUS, SFM) compared to both MAL and NFM, and in NOT MAL (ND, NFM, AUS, SFM) compared to MAL. However, these differences were not substantial enough to hold any clinical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while fluid volume may slightly influence the TIS category, it does not impact the diagnostic accuracy of serous effusion cytology. Therefore, the ideal serous effusion specimen volume can be defined solely by practical parameters.