The Value of Second-Opinion Consultation in Nongynecologic Cytopathology.

OBJECTIVES: The value of consultation in pathology has been well documented in surgical pathology, but there are few comprehensive studies of consultation cases in cytopathology. Here we report our experience with cytopathology consultation cases at a large academic center. METHODS: A review of consultation cases at our institution was performed by searching our laboratory information system. The contributing institution's diagnosis was compared with that rendered by the reviewing cytopathologist to assess major and/or minor diagnostic discrepancies. RESULTS: In total, 928 cases were reviewed with the following distribution: fine-needle aspiration (FNA, 79.4%), exfoliative nongynecologic cytology (18.3%), and cases with both FNA and nongynecologic cytology (2.3%). There were 379 (40.8%) true consults and 549 (59.2%) confirming consults. A total of 586 (63.1%) cases were in agreement with the outside pathologist, 78 (8.4%) cases had major discrepancies, and 264 (28.4%) cases had minor discrepancies. Major discrepancies were most common for pancreas (38.5%), lymph node (11.5%), and soft tissue sites (9.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Of the cases, 8.4% had major diagnostic discrepancies between the original diagnosis and the consultation diagnosis, which is consistent with reported values in surgical pathology consultation studies. The findings support the importance of second-opinion consultation in cytopathology to guide patient care.

Endocervical glandular involvement is associated with an increased detection rate of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions on the Papanicolaou test.

INTRODUCTION: Although The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytopathology does not mandate reporting of endocervical glandular involvement (EGI) in Papanicolaou test specimens with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), several studies have suggested that EGI diagnosed on surgical specimens is associated with higher rates of residual or recurrent dysplasia. When suspected, EGI is reported for Papanicolaou test specimens at our institution, but the performance of this diagnosis has not been assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The archives were queried for Papanicolaou test specimens with a diagnosis of HSIL-EGI (2006-2017). All follow-up surgical pathology specimens within a year of the Papanicolaou test diagnosis were evaluated for cytologic-histologic correlation. This same query was repeated for all surgical pathology specimens with a diagnosis of HSIL-EGI. All preceding Papanicolaou test diagnoses within a year were assessed for cytologic-histologic correlation. Twenty Papanicolaou test specimen glass slides were reviewed by 6 observers to assess for interobserver variability. RESULTS: Patients with HSIL-EGI on surgical specimens were more likely to have a preceding Papanicolaou diagnosis of HSIL and atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) (32.3% versus 25.5%, P = 0.03, and 16.7% versus 11.8%, P = 0.04, respectively). Patients with an HSIL-EGI diagnosis on a Papanicolaou test were significantly more likely to have HSIL-EGI detected on a follow-up histology (41.6% versus 24.0%, P < 0.001). Interobserver concordance was poor for the assignment of EGI in Papanicolaou test specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the diagnosis of HSIL-EGI on Papanicolaou test specimens is complicated by poor sensitivity and interobserver concordance.

Variability among observers utilizing the CellSolutions BestCyte Cell Sorter imaging system for the assessment of urinary tract cytology specimens.

INTRODUCTION: Image analysis systems are not currently commonly used for evaluating urinary cytology specimens. We evaluated whether the BestCyte Cell Sorter (CellSolutions, Greensboro, NC) imaging system can reliably identify atypical cells in urinary cytology specimens. METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive urine cytology specimens underwent 2 preparations: one slide using SurePath (SP; BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD)™ for routine clinical evaluation, and a second slide using the CellSolutions F50 system for analysis by the BestCyte Cell Sorter (BCCS) scanning system. Eight observers reviewed atypical cells flagged by BCCS and assigned a BCCS diagnosis to each of the 53 specimens. The observers also blindly reviewed the SP preparation (when available) and assigned an SP diagnosis. The SP diagnoses given by one "expert" observer was considered as a reference diagnosis. RESULTS: There was fair-to-moderate agreement among observers for identifying any atypia and high-grade atypia (Fleiss kappa: 0.417 and 0.338, respectively) using BCCS. Review of SP preparations had slightly better agreement (Fleiss kappa: 0.558 and 0.564, respectively). Intraobserver agreement between the two methods varied greatly between individuals (Cohen's kappa range: 0.260 to 0.647). When a consensus diagnosis could be reached among the observers for cases with surgical follow-up, the consensus diagnosis was concordant in 11 of 12 instances, with one instance being a one-step discrepancy. CONCLUSIONS: Specimen review by BCCS resulted in slightly greater interobserver variability than review of routine SP preparations. This may have been due to variations in observer experience and comfort with the use of a digital imaging system, which is further suggested by the wide range of intraobserver agreement among individuals.