Performance of specific morphologic features in distinguishing low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions from high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in borderline cases: a College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee multiobserver study.

INTRODUCTION: Distinguishing between low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) can be difficult on certain Papanicolaou (Pap) tests, hindering interobserver concordance. We investigated the variables influencing the interpretation of LSIL versus HSIL in Pap test slides rejected from the College of American Pathologists PAP education program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven cytologists, who were unaware of the reference interpretation, examined 21 Pap slides (11 submitted as LSIL and 10 as HSIL) rejected from the PAP education program and recorded the number of LSIL cells, HSIL cells, keratinized dysplastic cells, LSIL clusters with mixed HSIL cells, atypical squamous metaplasia, atypical glandular cells, the presence of inflammation or infectious organisms, and the overall interpretation (LSIL or HSIL). We evaluated the significance of these 11 variables using a nonlinear mixed model analysis. RESULTS: LSIL had greater concordance (92 of 121 responses; 76.0% concordance) than HSIL (68 of 110 responses; 61.8% concordance; P < 0.001). The only predictors of misclassified cases were the number of atypical squamous metaplastic cells and the number of HSIL cells (P < 0.001). The more of these cells identified, the more likely the reviewers were to classify the slide as HSIL. The reproducibility of the diagnosis was fair (Gwet's agreement coefficient, 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver reproducibility is a challenge for a subset of cases with features intermediate between LSIL and HSIL. Atypical squamous metaplasia and dysplastic nuclei with a nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio greater than one half of the cell volume (HSIL) present on a Pap test influenced the likelihood that a reviewer would interpret the case as HSIL rather than LSIL.

Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion or High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion? Concordance Between the Interpretation of Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion in Papanicolaou Tests: Results From the College of American Pathologists PAP Education Program.

CONTEXT.­: Obtaining diagnostic concordance for squamous intraepithelial lesions in cytology can be challenging. OBJECTIVE.­: To determine diagnostic concordance for biopsy-proven low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) Papanicolaou test slides in the College of American Pathologists PAP Education program. DESIGN.­: We analyzed 121 059 responses from 4251 LSIL and HSIL slides for the interval 2004 to 2013 using a nonlinear mixed-model fit for reference diagnosis, preparation type, and participant type. We evaluated interactions between the reference diagnosis and the other 2 factors in addition to a repeated-measures component to adjust for slide-specific performance. RESULTS.­: There was a statistically significant difference between misclassification of LSIL (2.4%; 1384 of 57 664) and HSIL (4.4%; 2762 of 63 395). There was no performance difference between pathologists and cytotechnologists for LSIL, but cytotechnologists had a significantly higher HSIL misclassification rate than pathologists (5.5%; 1437 of 27 534 versus 4.0%; 1032 of 25 630; P = .01), and both were more likely to misrepresent HSIL as LSIL ( P < .001) than the reverse. ThinPrep LSIL slides were more likely to be misclassified as HSIL (2.4%; 920 of 38 582) than SurePath LSIL slides (1.5%; 198 of 13 196), but conventional slides were the most likely to be misclassified in both categories (4.5%; 266 of 5886 for LSIL, and 6.5%; 573 of 8825 for HSIL). CONCLUSIONS.­: More participants undercalled HSIL as LSIL (false-negative) than overcalled LSIL as HSIL (false-positive) in the PAP Education program, with conventional slides more likely to be misclassified than ThinPrep or SurePath slides. Pathologists and cytotechnologists classify LSIL equally well, but cytotechnologists are significantly more likely to undercall HSIL as LSIL than are pathologists.

Update on the College of American Pathologists Experience With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Proficiency Testing for Cytology.

CONTEXT: - Since 2008, the College of American Pathologists has provided the human papillomavirus for cytology laboratories (CHPV) proficiency testing program to help laboratories meet the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. OBJECTIVES: - To provide an update on trends in proficiency testing performance in the College of American Pathologists CHPV program during the 4-year period from 2011 through 2014 and to compare those trends with the preceding first 3 years of the program. DESIGN: - Responses of laboratories participating in the CHPV program from 2011 through 2014 were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed model to compare different combinations of testing medium and platform. RESULTS: - In total, 818 laboratories participated in the CHPV program at least once during the 4 years, with participation increasing during the study period. Concordance of participant responses with the target result was more than 98% (38 280 of 38 892). Overall performance with all 3 testing media-ThinPrep (Hologic, Bedford, Massachusetts), SurePath (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), or Digene (Qiagen, Valencia, California)-was equivalent (P = .51), and all 4 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved platforms-Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cervista (Hologic), Aptima (Hologic), and cobas (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, California)-outperformed laboratory-developed tests, unspecified commercial kits, and other (noncommercial) methods in ThinPrep medium (P < .001). However, certain off-label combinations of platform and medium, most notably Cervista with SurePath, demonstrated suboptimal performance (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: - Laboratories demonstrated proficiency in using various combinations of testing media and platforms offered in the CHPV program, with statistically significant performance differences in certain combinations. These observations may be relevant in the current discussions about FDA oversight of laboratory-developed tests.

Mapping geographic zones of cancer risk with epigenetic biomarkers in normal breast tissue.

PURPOSE: Genetic alterations were previously identified in normal epithelia adjacent to invasive cancers. The aim of this study was to determine DNA methylation in histologically normal tissues from multiple geographic zones adjacent to primary breast tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: First, methylation status of a 4-kb region of RASSF1A promoter was interrogated using oligonucleotide-based microarray in 144 samples (primary tumors, 47; adjacent normals, 69; reduction mammoplasty tissues, 28). Second, allelic imbalance (AI)/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) surrounding RASSF1A promoter were analyzed in 30 samples (tumors, 8; adjacent normals, 22). Third, global methylation screening of 49 samples (tumors, 12; adjacent normals, 25; reduction mammoplasty, 12) was done by differential methylation hybridization. Real-time quantitative methylation-specific PCR was used to validate the microarray findings. RESULTS: DNA methylation in the core RASSF1A promoter was low in reduction mammoplasty tissues (P=0.0001) when compared with primary tumors. The adjacent normals had an intermediate level of methylation. The regions surrounding the core were highly methylated in all sample types. Microsatellite markers showed AI/LOH in tumors and some of the adjacent normals. Concurrent AI/LOH and DNA methylation in RASSF1A promoter occurred in two of six tumors. Global methylation screening uncovered genes more methylated in adjacent normals than in reduction mammoplasty tissues. The methylation status of four genes was confirmed by quantitative methylation-specific PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a field of methylation changes extending as far as 4 cm from primary tumors. These frequent alterations may explain why normal tissues are at risk for local recurrence and are useful in disease prognostication.