Cytologic-Histologic Correlation Practices for Nongynecologic Cytology Specimens: A Survey by the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee.

Context.--: Cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC) is a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-mandated requirement for gynecologic cytology, but no similar requirement exists for nongynecologic cytology. This study presents the findings from a College of American Pathologists survey of nongynec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Vol. 148; no. 8; pp. 871 - 880
Autores principales: Nguyen, Lananh N., Crothers, Barbara A., Souers, Rhona J., Barkan, Güliz A., Brainard, Jennifer, Nassar, Aziza, Rollins, Susan, Tabatabai, Z. Laura, Tabbara, Sana, Witt, Benjamin, Booth, Christine N.
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: College of American Pathologists Aug2024
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Context.--: Cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC) is a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-mandated requirement for gynecologic cytology, but no similar requirement exists for nongynecologic cytology. This study presents the findings from a College of American Pathologists survey of nongynecologic cytology practice patterns. Objective.--: To survey the current CHC practices for nongynecologic cytology. Design.--: Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the committee and distributed to participants in the Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing. Results.--: Adoption of CHC for nongynecologic cytology cases is worldwide, with 88.5% of institutions performing CHC on these specimens, a substantial increase from previous years. Performance of CHC varied by institution type, with clinic or regional/local independent laboratories and national/corporate laboratories performing CHC significantly less frequently than hospitals, university hospitals/academic medical centers, and Veterans Administration/Department of Defense hospital institutions. Most CHC was performed concurrently in real time, when the corresponding surgical specimen was reviewed. Selection for real-time concurrent CHC was by the interpreting pathologist, the pathologist diagnosing the surgical biopsy sample or cytopathology case, or both. Sampling was by far the most common reason for discordance. A 2-step difference was the most frequent threshold for discordance between cytology and surgical specimens, but this criterion varied among institutions, with no majority definition. The positive predictive value of a positive cytology finding was calculated rarely in North American institutions but was calculated more frequently in international institutions. Conclusions.--: CHC practices for nongynecologic cytopathology mirror those found for CHC of gynecologic cytopathology.