Editorial: Optimizing Schools of Cytology: Discussions from the 2022 ASC/IAC Cytology Education Symposium, North American Strategies, and European Symbiosis.

This report highlights information and outcomes from the November 2022 ASC/IAC joint Cytology Education Symposium, an annual conference organized by the Cytology Programs Review Committee. The manuscript provides information on shared educational opportunities and practices for cytology students and other learners in anatomic pathology, discusses recruitment strategies for schools of cytology, conveys teaching resources, introduces perspectives on virtual microscopy and online learning, and transmits information about wellness of students in schools of cytology.

Optimizing schools of cytology: Discussions from the 2022 ASC/IAC Cytology Education Symposium, North American Strategies, and European Symbiosis.

This report highlights information and outcomes from the November 2022 ASC/IAC joint Cytology Education Symposium, an annual conference organized by the Cytology Programs Review Committee. The manuscript provides information on shared educational opportunities and practices for cytology students and other learners in anatomic pathology, discusses recruitment strategies for schools of cytology, conveys teaching resources, introduces perspectives on virtual microscopy and online learning, and transmits information about wellness of students in schools of cytology.

Liquid-based rapid onsite evaluation of endobronchial ultrasound cytologies.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) generally uses smears made at the site of the procedure ("smear-based ROSE"). It requires considerable time, generally 2 individuals, technical expertise, and it can be difficult to estimate material available for ancillary studies. We developed an alternative ROSE using liquid-based cytology ThinPrep with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain ("liquid-based ROSE") and assessed its advantages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians rinse the sample(s) into CytoRich Red and send to Pathology. A defined proportion of the needle rinse is removed for a ThinPrep stained with a rapid H&E. Adequacy and diagnosis were compared to final outcome. Total time was recorded. RESULTS: Among 52 liquid-based ROSE readings, 28 (53.8%) were interpreted as "adequate" with final as adequate; 17 (32.7%) were interpreted as "inadequate" with final as inadequate; 7 (13.5%) were interpreted as "inadequate" with final as adequate. Of 23 readings provided with onsite diagnosis, 15 (65.2%) were interpreted as definitive positive or negative diagnoses; 6 (26%) were interpreted as nondiagnostic; and 2 (8.7%) were interpreted as atypical. All definitive diagnoses were concordant with final diagnoses. The time for liquid ROSE performance ranges from 6 to 22 minutes (mean: 13 minutes) and required only 1 individual. CONCLUSIONS: Liquid-based ROSE allows accurate adequacy determination and diagnosis, takes about 15 minutes of cytologist time, and can be performed by just 1 person. The technique produces well-preserved and stained slides, it may allow a better estimation of the total amount of material in the specimen vial and may provide a better platform for telecytology.

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.

Primary HPV cervical cancer screening in the United States: Are we ready?

In September 2017, the United States Preventive Services Task Force put forth updated draft guidelines for cervical cancer screening in the United States, which were then open to public comment. The recommendations allowed for every-3-year cervical cytology screening in women aged 21 to 65 years with an option for every-5-year high-risk human papillomavirus testing in women aged 30 to 65 years. There was no option for cotesting. Other recommendations were similar to those published by other professional organizations. The Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium provided an official response during the open comment period, which is summarized here along with additional commentary by the authors.

An advocacy victory: final USPSTF cervical cancer screening recommendations revised to include cotesting option.

The recent reversal of the US Preventive Services Task Force decision to drop cotesting (Papicolaou test + high-risk human papillomavirus test) as an option for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 to 65 years from their recommendations for cervical cancer screening was directly attributed to advocacy efforts by professional organizations and individuals. This communication summarizes the pathology and laboratory medicine community's role in this advocacy effort by collaboration of all major US Pathology organizations, via the Cytopathology Education and Technology consortium.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology or cotesting (cytology in combination with high-risk human papillomavirus [hrHPV] testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective U.S.-based registration study. Thirteen experts, including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Cytopathology, the College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for health care providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

In 2011, the American Cancer Society, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology updated screening guidelines for the early detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. Recommended screening strategies were cytology and cotesting (cytology in combination with hrHPV testing). These guidelines also addressed the use of hrHPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, which was not recommended for use at that time. There is now a growing body of evidence for screening with primary hrHPV testing, including a prospective US-based registration study. Thirteen experts including representatives from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Cancer Society, American Society of Cytopathology, College of American Pathologists, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, convened to provide interim guidance for primary hrHPV screening. This guidance panel was specifically triggered by an application to the FDA for a currently marketed HPV test to be labeled for the additional indication of primary cervical cancer screening. Guidance was based on literature review and review of data from the FDA registration study, supplemented by expert opinion. This document aims to provide information for healthcare providers who are interested in primary hrHPV testing and an overview of the potential advantages and disadvantages of this strategy for screening as well as to highlight areas in need of further investigation.

2013 statement on human papillomavirus [corrected] test utilization.

This statement from the Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium summarizes appropriate and inappropriate uses of human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening based on guidelines from the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology and the American Cancer Society. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.