Navigating Practice Issues Related to the Unsatisfactory Cervicovaginal Papanicolaou Test: Survey Results of Laboratories Participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists PAP Education Program-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Navigating Practice Issues Related to the Unsatisfactory Cervicovaginal Papanicolaou Test: Survey Results of Laboratories Participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists PAP Education Program

Published:2023-04-19 Issue:1 Volume:148 Page:48-54
ISSN:1543-2165
Container-title:Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Goyal Abha¹,Booth Christine N.²,Souers Rhona J.³,Tabbara Sana O.⁴,Roberson Janie⁵,Henry Michael R.⁶,Sundling Kaitlin E.⁷,Goodrich Kelly³,Nguyen Lananh⁸

Affiliation:

1. From the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York (Goyal)

2. the Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (Booth)

3. the Departments of Biostatistics (Souers) and Proficiency Testing (Goodrich), College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois

4. the Department of Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida (Tabbara)

5. the Department of Pathology, University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital, Birmingham (Roberson)

6. the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (Henry)

7. the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene and University of Wisconsin, Madison (Sundling)

8. the Department of Laboratory Medicine & Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Nguyen)

Abstract

Context.— Unsatisfactory Papanicolaou (Pap) tests pose a unique set of challenges to the laboratory with regard to their processing, review, reporting, and performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. There are no standardized guidelines for the review process and handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests. Objective.— To assess the current practice patterns regarding various aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test, from processing to reporting, across laboratories worldwide. Design.— A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program, requesting data regarding the unsatisfactory Pap test. Results.— Of 1520 participating laboratories, 619 (40.7%) responded, and the responses of 577 laboratories were included for further analysis. Only 64.6% (373 of 577) laboratories used the unsatisfactory Pap test criteria as specified by the 2014 Bethesda System. About three-quarters of the respondents (433 of 576; 75.2%) routinely rescreened unsatisfactory Pap tests. Routine repreparation of such Pap tests was performed by 54.9% (316 of 576) of laboratories, and 52.0% (293 of 563) used glacial acetic acid for repreparing excessively bloody specimens. HPV test results were reported for unsatisfactory Pap tests, always or sometimes, by 62.4% (353 of 566) of respondents. Conclusions.— This CAP survey reveals important information regarding the practice patterns pertaining to several aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test. It also provides valuable insight into the quality assurance measures that can be implemented for such tests. Future studies can further aid in the standardization of all components of the handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests for overall quality improvement.

Publisher

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Subject

Medical Laboratory Technology,General Medicine,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Link

https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article-pdf/148/1/48/3308620/i1543-2165-148-1-48.pdf

Reference36 articles.

1. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A., December 12-13, 1988. Acta Cytol. 1989; 33(5): 567– 574.

2. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287(16): 2114– 2119.

3. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004; 128(11): 1224– 1229.

4. Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133(12): 1912– 1916.

5. Eversole GM, Moriarty AT, Schwartz MR, et al. Practices of participants in the college of american pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology, 2006. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134(3): 331– 335.