Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2022 Mar 10. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2021-0223-CP. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT.—: The College of American Pathologists (CAP) updated the Laboratory Accreditation Program Cytopathology Checklist to assist laboratories in meeting and exceeding the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments standards for gynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC).
OBJECTIVE.—: To survey the current CHC practices.
DESIGN.—: Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the committee and distributed to participants in the CAP Gynecologic Cytopathology PAP Education Program mailing.
RESULTS.—: Worldwide, CHC practice is nearly universally adopted, with an overall rate of 87.0% (568 of 653). CHC material was highly accessible. CHC was commonly performed real time/concurrently at the time the corresponding surgical pathology was reviewed. Investigation of CHC discordances varied with North American laboratories usually having a single pathologist review all discrepant histology and cytology slides to determine the reason for discordance, while international laboratories have a second pathologist review histology slides to determine the reason for discordance. The cause of CHC discordance was primarily sampling issues. The more common statistical metrics for CHC monitoring were the total percentage of cases that correlated with subsequent biopsies, screening error rate by cytotechnologist, and interpretative error rate by cytotechnologist.
CONCLUSIONS.—: Many laboratories have adopted and implemented the CHC guidelines with identifiable differences in practices between North American and international laboratories. We identify the commonalities and differences between North American and international institutional practices including where CHC is performed, how CHC cases are identified and their accessibility, when CHC is performed, who investigates discordances, what discordances are identified, and how the findings affect quality improvement.
PMID:35271691 | DOI:10.5858/arpa.2021-0223-CP
