Reliably making the primary diagnosis of mesothelioma utilizing serous fluid cytology specimens: an institutional experience.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of mesothelioma has historically been challenging, especially on serous fluid cytology (SFC). Distinguishing between reactive and neoplastic mesothelial cells can be difficult on cytomorphology alone. However, additional ancillary tests, such as BRCA1 associated protein-1 immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization for cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A deletion, can provide a sensitive and highly specific method of proving malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SFC specimens diagnosed as mesothelioma, suspicious for mesothelioma (SM), and atypical mesothelial cells (AMCs) since 2012 were identified by querying the laboratory information system. Clinical data and pathologic parameters were gathered. RESULTS: One hundred ten cases of mesothelioma, SM, and AMC were identified. Of these, 61 cases had a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma on SFC. Average age at SFC diagnosis was 67 years (26-87 years), with most patients being male (67%). Out of the 61 cases, 11 cases (18%) had an initial diagnosis of mesothelioma made on SFC specimens, with 5 of these 11 cases being in patients that never received a histologic diagnosis of mesothelioma. Ancillary studies were utilized in all 11 cases. An initial diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma was made on SFC in 9 cases (15%). For 6 of these 9 cases, the SFC diagnosis was the sole diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma without a companion histologic diagnosis. In addition, 15 cases were diagnosed as SM, with 11 of these cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. Thirty-four cases were diagnosed as AMC, with 27 cases following a definitive mesothelioma diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of mesothelioma can be reliably made on SFC with the appropriate cytomorphology criteria and/or confirmatory ancillary testing.

American Society of Cytopathology Telecytology validation recommendations for rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

Telecytology has multiple applications, including rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens. It can enhance cytopathology practice by increasing productivity, reducing costs, and providing subspecialty expertise in areas with limited access to a cytopathologist. However, there are currently no specific validation guidelines to ensure safe practice and compliance with regulations. This initiative, promoted by the American Society of Cytopathology (ASC), intends to propose recommendations for telecytology implementation. These recommendations propose that the validation process should include testing of all hardware and software, both separately and as a whole; training of all individuals who will participate in telecytology with regular competency evaluations; a structured approach using retrospective slides with defined diagnoses for validation and prospective cases for verification and quality assurance. Telecytology processes must be integrated into the laboratory's quality management system and benchmarks for discrepancy rates between preliminary and final diagnoses should be established and monitored. Special attention should be paid to minimize discrepancies that downgrade malignant cases to benign (false positive on telecytology). Currently, billing and reimbursement codes for telecytology are not yet available. Once, they are, recommendation of the appropriate usage of these codes would be a part of the recommendations. These proposed guidelines are intended to be a resource for laboratories that are considering implementing telecytology. These recommendations can help to ensure the safe and effective use of telecytology and maximize its benefits for patients.

Molecular-derived risk of malignancy and the related positive call rate of indeterminate thyroid cytology diagnoses as quality metrics for individual cytopathologists.

BACKGROUND: Indeterminate thyroid cytopathology diagnoses represent differing degrees of risk that are corroborated by follow-up studies. However, traditional cytologic-histologic correlation may overestimate the risk of malignancy (ROM) because only a subset of cases undergo resection. Alternatively, some molecular tests provide probability of malignancy data to calculate the molecular-derived risk of malignancy (MDROM) and the positive call rate (PCR). The authors investigated MDROMs and PCRs of indeterminate diagnoses for individual cytopathologists as quality metrics. METHODS: This study was approved by the Department of Pathology Quality Improvement Program. Thyroid cytopathology diagnoses and ThyroSeq v3 results were retrieved for each cytopathologist for a 2-year period with at least 3 years of follow-up for the atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), follicular neoplasia (FN), and follicular neoplasia, oncocytic-type (ONC) cytopathologic diagnoses. MDROMs and PCRs were compared with reference ROMs and cytologic-histologic correlation outcomes. RESULTS: The overall MDROMs (and ranges for cytopathologists) for the AUS, FN, and ONC categories were 13.4% (range, 5.8%-20.8%), 28.1% (range, 22.1%-36.7%), and 27.0% (range, 19.5%-41.5%), respectively, and most individual cytopathologists' MDROMs were within reference ROM ranges. However, PCRs more effectively parsed the differences in cytopathologists' ROM performance. Although the overall PCRs were not significantly different across cytopathologists (p = .06), the AUS PCRs were quite different (p = .002). By cytologic-histologic correlation, six of 55 resected cases (10.9%) were falsely negative, and there were no false-positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: MDROMs and PCRs evaluate concordance with reference ROMs and with one another and provide individual feedback, which potentially facilitates quality improvement.

Quality metrics in non-gynecologic cytology: results from the 2022 American Society of Cytopathology survey.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid advancements in minimally invasive techniques and the discovery of molecular biomarkers have resulted in major changes in the practice of non-gynecologic cytology and have highlighted a need for novel quality assurance (QA) metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To obtain data regarding the current and desired usage, methods of collection, and barriers to the implementation of non-gynecologic cytopathology QA, an 18-question survey was constructed by the Clinical Practice Committee of the American Society for Cytopathology. RESULTS: A total of 206 responses were received. Respondents included 112 (54.4%) cytopathologists, 81 (39.3%) cytotechnologists, and 13 others. Almost all (97%) acknowledged the value of assessing QA metrics in cytology. The most commonly used QA metrics were cytotechnologist-pathologist diagnostic agreement and pathologist amendment rates. The desire to implement non-gynecologic QA metrics was significantly higher among academic hospitals, relative to nonacademic facilities. A combined manual and electronic approach to collect QA data was generally used (70% of institutions). QA metrics were more often collected by the cytology laboratory supervisors (59.5%), while the evaluation was most often performed by the cytology laboratory director (76.5%). Limited staffing and laboratory information system (LIS) capabilities were cited as major challenges in the implementation of novel QA metrics. CONCLUSIONS: While the collection of quality data might be perceived as an onerous task, a thoughtful selection of quality indicators, with an inbuilt search option in LIS, can contribute to the successful implementation of non-gynecologic QA metrics.

Cell blocks in cytology: review of preparation methods, advantages, and limitations.

Cell blocks are cytologic preparations that are processed as paraffin embedded blocks in a manner comparable to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue in surgical pathology. In addition to serving as an adjunct to other cytologic preparations for morphologic diagnosis, cell blocks play an increasingly important role as they yield tissue sections that can be utilized for ancillary testing such as immunohistochemical stains and molecular studies. While essentially universally viewed as playing a pivotal role in cytopathology practice, there are various factors that limit their use in practice and contribute to dissatisfaction with cell block quality. Cell block preparation, as opposed to tissue processing in surgical pathology, is more variable with many different protocols in use today. This review explores the most commonly used cell block preparation techniques currently in use with review of the unique advantages and limitations each method presents. The goal of this work is to serve as a resource that can aid in making more informed decisions about which cell block protocol may work best for individual laboratories.

Cross-contamination in cytology processing: a review of current practice.

INTRODUCTION: New cytopreparatory technologies decrease the need for direct smears in favor of an increased use of liquid-based cytology methods. Despite these practice changes, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments continue to require that cytopathology laboratories have procedures to prevent cross-contamination (CC). While the incidence of CC is not well documented, specific cytologic preparations and specimens with a high potential for CC have not been generally defined by professional guidelines or consensus. The American Society of Cytopathology Clinical Practice Committee surveyed cytology practitioners to better understand current practice related to CC in cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey focused on four topics: (1) practice settings and demographic data; (2) current practice for meeting CC requirements; (3) practice for rapid on-site evaluation; and (4) preparation types considered high risk for CC. The survey was sent to all American Society of Cytopathology and American Society for Cytotechnology members from July 1 to August 14, 2020. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of laboratories had a written CC policy, with 66.18% of the policies addressing rapid on-site evaluation CC procedures. Documented cases of CC were rare. Alcohol-fixed, direct smears of Pap-stained fluids were deemed the most likely to be impacted by CC. Cell block contamination during the histologic processing were reported by 56.20% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in practice has resulted in decreased preparation types associated with a high potential for CC. Laboratories should follow a risk-based approach to define these cases. Knowledge of practice patterns among laboratories can guide the development and refinement of policy and procedures.

Accuracy of definitive rapid onsite evaluation cytopathology diagnoses: Assessment of potentially critical diagnoses as a quality assurance measure.

INTRODUCTION: Intraprocedural rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) of cytology specimens enhances cytopathology practice. More recently, ROSE diagnoses, like frozen section (FS) diagnoses, have guided immediate clinical decisions. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of definitive ROSE diagnoses in our quality assurance system over a 52-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cytopathology cases with ROSE from January 2017 to April 2021were retrieved from our laboratory information system. After excluding cases that were deferred or nondiagnostic/unsatisfactory, each definitive ROSE diagnosis (ie, negative for malignant cells or positive for malignant cells) was categorized as having agreement or disagreement with the final diagnosis. For comparison, concordance of FS diagnoses from the same time period were tabulated and compared to those of ROSE diagnoses by using χ2 testing with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 1649 ROSE diagnoses, there were 15 disagreements (0.9%) with 1 final moderate interpretive disagreement (0.06%). By comparison, of the 17,469 FS diagnoses, there were 141 disagreements (0.8%) with 49 final moderate or major interpretive disagreements (0.3%). The remaining disagreements were minor. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of final moderate and major interpretive disagreements. CONCLUSIONS: The final interpretive disagreement rates for definitive ROSE and FS diagnoses were similar in this study. Given the expanding role of ROSE and its use for immediate clinical decisions in some cases, monitoring the accuracy of definitive diagnoses may serve as an initial quality assurance measure.

Telecytology rapid on-site evaluation: Diagnostic challenges, technical issues and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) has been widely used to improve diagnostic adequacy and facilitate specimen triage. Telecytology ROSE has gained popularity recently and shown high concordance with traditional ROSE. However, telecytology involves multiple personnel and technical devices that could introduce additional errors. The aim of this paper is to share errors encountered and lessons learned since employing telecytology for ROSE at our institution. METHODS: The laboratory information system was searched for all documented telecytology ROSE errors from 2017 to 2019. These errors were subclassified as technical errors, cytotechnologist-related errors and pathologist-related errors. The following details were recorded for each reported event: type of error, reason for error, ROSE diagnosis, final diagnosis and actions taken to avoid future errors. RESULTS: Telecytology ROSE errors were documented in 46 (1.3%) sessions. Ten (22%) had technical errors, 13 (28%) were owing to cytotechnologist errors and 23 (50%) were attributed to pathologist interpretation errors. The majority of the technical (90%) and cytotechnologist errors (85%) occurred within the first year of implementation of telecytology. Common ROSE misinterpretation errors included missing microorganisms, misclassifying neuroendocrine tumours as other neoplasms and overcalling malignancy on gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of errors may occur during telecytology ROSE. While some errors are inevitable (eg, information technology downtime), certain telecytology errors can be reduced by increasing staff familiarity with the system, providing timely feedbacks and taking prompt corrective actions. We recommend establishing a mechanism to document and act upon recorded errors as part of a telecytology quality improvement programme.

Assessing competency for remote telecytology rapid on-site evaluation using pre-recorded dynamic video streaming.

INTRODUCTION: Telecytology using real-time microscopy has gained popularity for rapid on-site evaluations (ROSE). Although proficiency testing is routinely used in cytopathology, no established means of competency assessment is currently available for telecytology. Our aim was to determine the feasibility of a dynamic (real-time) platform to assess telecytology competency. METHODS: Remote Medical Technology dynamic (real-time) video streaming platform for ROSE is used at our institution, and short video clips of telecytology cases were recorded using Camtasia Studio 8 software during different ROSE sessions. Selected MP4 videos (range 13-88 seconds, mean 33 seconds), along with clinical histories, were used to build a multiple-choice question test with one training case and 20 test cases, utilising Tutor (Philips) software to host the web-based test. The test was voluntary for cytopathologists and cytotechnologists. Answers and feedback from test takers were analysed. RESULTS: Thirteen participants-four cytopathologists and nine cytotechnologists-previously trained to use telecytology, volunteered to take the test. Individual scores ranged from 10 (50%) to 19 (95%) with a median of 16 (80%). Most feedback received involved technical difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: We present, to the best of our knowledge, the first tool to assess telecytology competency for ROSE using pre-recorded dynamic streaming videos. Despite technical challenges related to incorporating videos into a web-based test, the test was feasible and provided users with valuable feedback about their ROSE performance. Future effort will be devoted to establishing a more user-friendly test platform and establishing a benchmark for passing scores.

Comparison of glass slides and various digital-slide modalities for cytopathology screening and interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Whole-slide imaging in cytology is limited when glass slides are digitized without z-stacks for focusing. Different vendors have started to provide z-stacking solutions to overcome this limitation. The Panoptiq imaging system allows users to create digital files combining low-magnification panoramic images with regions of interest (ROIs) that are imaged with high-magnification z-stacks. The aim of this study was to compare such panoramic images with conventional whole-slide images and glass slides for the tasks of screening and interpretation in cytopathology. METHODS: Thirty glass slides, including 10 ThinPrep Papanicolaou tests and 20 nongynecologic cytology cases, were digitized with an Olympus BX45 integrated microscope with an attached Prosilica GT camera. ViewsIQ software was used for image acquisition and viewing. These glass slides were also scanned on an Aperio ScanScope XT at ×40 (0.25 µm/pixel) with 1 z-plane and were viewed with ImageScope software. Digital and glass sides were screened and dotted/annotated by a cytotechnologist and were subsequently reviewed by 3 cytopathologists. For panoramic images, the cytotechnologist manually created digital maps and selected representative ROIs to generate z-stacks at a higher magnification. After 3-week washout periods, panoramic images were compared with Aperio digital slides and glass slides. RESULTS: The Panoptiq system permitted fine focusing of thick smears and cell clusters. In comparison with glass slides, the average screening times were 5.5 and 1.8 times longer with Panoptiq and Aperio images, respectively, but this improved with user experience. There was no statistical difference in diagnostic concordance between all 3 modalities. Users' diagnostic confidence was also similar for all modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The Aperio whole-slide scanner with 1 z-plane scanning and the Panoptiq imaging system with z-stacking are both suitable for cytopathology screening and interpretation. However, ROI z-stacks do offer a superior mechanism for overcoming focusing problems commonly encountered with digital cytology slides. Unlike whole-slide imaging, the acquisition of representative z-stack images with the Panoptiq system requires a trained cytologist to create digital files. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:701-9. © 2017 American Cancer Society.