18 research outputs found
European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology.
Item does not contain fulltextThere are many different systems of cytology classification used in the member states of the European Union (EU) and many different languages. The following short annexe to Chapter 3 of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening provides a framework that will allow different terminologies and languages to be translated into standard terminology based on the Bethesda system (TBS) for cytology while retaining the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) classification for histology. This approach has followed extensive consultation with representatives of many countries and professional groups as well as a discussion forum published in Cytopathology (2005;16:113). This article will describe the reporting of specimen adequacy, which is dealt with in more detail elsewhere in Chapter 3 of the guidelines, the optional general categorization recommended in TBS, the interpretation/cytology result and other comments that may be made on reports such as concurrent human papillomavirus testing and the use of automation review and recommendations for management. The main categories in TBS will be described in the context of CIN, dyskaryosis and dysplasia terminologies so that all may be translated into the same framework. These guidelines should allow European countries to adapt their terminology in such a way as to make their screening programmes comparable with each other as well as with programmes elsewhere in the world
Human papillomavirus testing and reporting rates in 2012: results of a College of American Pathologists national survey
CONTEXT: College of American Pathologists (CAP) surveys are used to establish national benchmarks for laboratory parameters. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in laboratory human papillomavirus (HPV) testing patterns in laboratories incorporating HPV testing with Papanicolaou tests in 2012. DESIGN: Data were analyzed from the CAP HPV Supplemental Questionnaire distributed to 1771 laboratories participating in either CAP HPV or CAP Papanicolaou proficiency testing in 2013. RESULTS: A total of 1022 laboratories (58%) responded. There were more high-risk (HR) HPV tests performed per institution as compared to previous surveys. There were more HPV tests performed within an institution as compared to previous surveys. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) remains the most common method (42.4%, 239 of 564); Cervista and cobas methods are used in 37.2% (210 of 564) and 14.9% (84 of 564) of laboratories, respectively. Human papillomavirus testing is offered as a reflex test after a Papanicolaou test result of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) in 89.6% of laboratories (476 of 531); as a cotest for women aged 30 years and older in 60.3% (404 of 531); as reflex testing after atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) in 42.7% (320 of 531); and as reflex testing after atypical glandular cells (AGC) in 27.3% (145 of 531). The HPV-positive rates for ASC-US and ASC-H were similar in 2012 and 2006. Cervista (49.2%, 88 of 179) and Roche cobas (27.4%, 49 of 179) are the most common methods used for genotyping. Most laboratories use the CAP Human Papillomavirus for Cytology Program for proficiency testing. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in annual volume of HR-HPV testing with a shift toward in-house HR-HPV testing. Genotyping volumes also increased. HC2 and Cervista are most commonly used, with an increasing volume of Roche cobas testing. The most common indication for HPV testing among all laboratories was ASC-US reflex testing, but an increase in HPV cotesting was observed. The data provide an update into persisting and newer trends in HPV testing practices
Recommended from our members
Whole-Slide Imaging Digital Pathology as a Platform for Teleconsultation: A Pilot Study Using Paired Subspecialist Correlations
Context.—Whole-slide imaging technology offers promise for rapid, Internet-based telepathology consultations between institutions. Before implementation, technical issues, pathologist adaptability, and morphologic pitfalls must be well characterized. Objective.—To determine whether interpretation of whole-slide images differed from glass-slide interpretation in difficult surgical pathology cases. Design.—Diagnostically challenging pathology slides from a variety of anatomic sites from an outside laboratory were scanned into whole digital format. Digital and glass slides were independently diagnosed by 2 subspecialty pathologists. Reference, digital, and glass-slide interpretations were compared. Operator comments on technical issues were gathered. Results.—Fifty-three case pairs were analyzed. There was agreement among digital, glass, and reference diagnoses in 45 cases (85%) and between digital and glass diagnoses in 48 (91%) cases. There were 5 digital cases (9%) discordant with both reference and glass diagnoses. Further review of each of these cases indicated an incorrect digital whole-slide interpretation. Neoplastic cases showed better correlation (93%) than did cases of nonneoplastic disease (88%). Comments on discordant cases related to digital whole technology focused on issues such as fine resolution and navigating ability at high magnification. Conclusions.—Overall concordance between digital whole-slide and standard glass-slide interpretations was good at 91%. Adjustments in technology, case selection, and technology familiarization should improve performance, making digital whole-slide review feasible for broader telepathology subspecialty consultation applications