Cytology

August 2023—We discuss in this article a common problem that all cytopathologists come across frequently in their practice: tumors of unknown primary origin involving body fluids and other sites. Metastatic tumor cells can disseminate and colonize discontinuous secondary body sites.¹ Such tumor metastases may be the patient’s initial presenting complaint to a family physician for deep-seated tumor primaries such as ovaries, pancreas, liver, and certain non-obstructive gastrointestinal tumors.

August 2023—Cytology gynecologic statistical laboratory data must be analyzed in the context of changing screening modalities and patient populations. This is especially important with the increasing use of primary high-risk HPV screening because diagnostic metrics will be markedly different in that patient population.

August 2023—Accurate and timely diagnosis is the cornerstone of effective patient care, particularly in the field of pulmonary pathology. To address the challenges health care professionals face in diagnosing and reporting respiratory conditions, the International Academy of Cytology, together with the International Agency for Research on Cancer, recently developed the World Health Organization Reporting System for Lung Cytopathology

May 2023—Standardized reporting systems have been developed during the past decade for cytopathology of different organ systems including the pancreaticobiliary system. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) in 2014 published the first reporting system for pancreaticobiliary cytology. Studies have demonstrated that implementation of the PSC reporting system has significantly reduced the number of “atypical” interpretations and increased the number of specific diagnoses.

May 2023—In the first article in our series on adequacy in cytology, published in January 2023 (bit.ly/3MDNVzr), we summarized current approaches to defining adequacy for the purpose of primary diagnosis in the majority of specimen types encountered routinely in cytology practice. As we saw, while the essence of adequacy is constant across reporting systems, the technical definitions can vary significantly by specimen type.

January 2023—The definition of “adequate” per the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “sufficient for a specific need.” In cytopathology, it is defined by the quantity and quality of the cellular material sampled. The final interpretation of a cytopathology report is almost universally preceded by an adequacy statement. While the essence of “adequacy” stays the same, its application varies depending on the specimen type and the site sampled. Furthermore, in the current era of personalized medicine, the definition of adequacy has expanded from “enough cells to make a morphologic diagnosis” to “enough cells to make a diagnosis and perform ancillary studies.”

January 2023—In recent years, a standardized classification system for the cytology of serous body cavities has been proposed. The system, known as the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC), published by Ashish Chandra, et al.,1 in 2020, aims to enhance the reproducibility of cytologic diagnoses, thereby facilitating clearer communication with clinicians. The diagnostic categories are as follows: I. Non-Diagnostic; II. Negative for Malignancy; III. Atypia of Undetermined Significance; IV. Suspicious for Malignancy; V. Malignant. Each progressive diagnostic category from I through V carries with it an increasing risk of malignancy. This brief review article aims to highlight the salient points of each diagnostic category and includes discussion of recent publications and our own institutional experience.

August 2022—The protocol for the reporting of cervicovaginal cytology, the first in a series of CAP cytopathology protocols, became available for use in a synoptic format on June 22. This protocol is a collaborative effort, based on input from past and present members of the CAP Cytopathology Committee and prepared in conjunction with the CAP Pathology Electronic Reporting Committee. It was presented via webinar to the CAP House of Delegates on March 31. A two-week open comment period followed; all comments were reviewed and appropriate changes were incorporated into the protocol.

August 2022—The ability to make a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma on pleural fluid cytology has been questioned and debated for a long time. The 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical guidelines limit the cytological diagnosis of pleural fluid specimens only as an initial screening test for mesothelioma. Monaco, et al., discuss in their article the appropriate use of ancillary studies (immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization studies) to make a definitive diagnosis of mesothelioma in small tissue samples, which are often processed as cell blocks. The authors recommend a stepwise approach starting with immunohistochemistry for BAP1 and, next, MTAP in cases of atypical mesothelial proliferations where the suspicion for malignant mesothelioma is high.