Search

* Context.--Misinterpretation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) is an important problem in daily practice and in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) PAP Proficiency Test (PAP-PT). Objective.--To investigate factors related to misinterpretation of HSIL through responses in a proficiency test versus an educational environment. Design.--We retrospectively evaluated 28 000 responses in the PAP Education Program (PAP-Edu) and 59 140 responses in PAP-PT from 1147 field-validated HSIL slides from 2007 to 2014. The related factors, such as program types, preparation types, participant types, and program years, were evaluated. Results.--Overall, 4.0% (2379 of 59 140) of responses for HSIL slides from PAP-PT were misinterpreted as either low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or negative, significantly more than those from PAP-Edu (3.2%; 898 of 28 000). However, the false-negative rate (misinterpreted as negative) was 0.9% (519 of 59 140) for PAPPT, lower than that for PAP-Edu (1.0%; 266 of 28 000). The misinterpretation rates in PAP-PT trended down with time. Misinterpretation rates did not vary significantly by preparation methods. The misinterpretation rate for HSIL in the pathologists' responses was lower than that in cytotechnologists' responses in PAP-PT. More HSIL was misinterpreted as LSIL than as benign in both programs. Cytotechnologists interpreted HSIL as LSIL twice as much as pathologists. The most common false-negative misinterpretations were negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy and reparative change. Conclusions.--The higher LSIL misinterpretation rate by cytotechnologists may be related to the differences in reporting responsibilities and proficiency test grading criteria. The trend of gradually decreasing misinterpretation rates of a reference diagnosis of HSIL in the PAP-PT program may be related to higher test-taking confidence and better preparation through educational programs. The fact that pathologists performed better than cytotechnologists in PAP-PT, but not in PAP-Edu, may reflect a heightened approach and attentiveness in the test-taking environment for pathologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.--Adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) is difficult to correctly interpret on Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology slides and false-negative interpretations of AIS can cause significant problems in daily practice. Objective.--To investigate the false-negative interpretation rate of AIS and the factors related to false-negative interpretation through responses in an educational environment. Design.--We retrospectively evaluated 11 337 responses in the PAP Education Program (PAP-Edu) from 173 AIS slides from 2011 to 2015. The false-negative interpretation rate, most common false-negative interpretations, and related other factors were evaluated. Results.--The overall false-negative rate was 6.9% (784 of 11 337). Respondents correctly interpreted AIS 50.0% (5667 of 11 337) of the time; high-grade intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and malignancies (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and other carcinomas) accounted for 42.7% (4842 of 11 337) and low-grade intraepithelial lesion accounted for 0.4% (44 of 11 337) of responses. Overall, 92.7% (10 509 of 11 337) of responses were HSIL and above. Among 784 false-negative responses, negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy was the most common (61.5% [482 of 784]), followed by reparative changes (24.1% [189 of 784]) and atrophic vaginitis (7.7% [60 of 784]). Overall, pathologists' responses showed a significantly higher false-negative rate than cytotechnologists' responses (8.3%, 403 of 4835 versus 5.7%, 275 of 4816; P, .001). The false-negative response rates were not statistically different among preparation types. Conclusions.--The low correct interpretation rate and higher false-negative rate for AIS demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting AIS on Pap cytology, which may cause clinical consequences. The higher false-negative rate with pathologists than with cytotechnologists suggests cytotechnologists' higher screening sensitivity for AIS or cautious interpretation to avoid false-positive results by pathologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]