Abha Goyal, Diane D Davey, Rhona J Souers, Janie Roberson, Michael R Henry, Donna K Russell, Lisa Teot, Eric C Huang, Sana O Tabbara
{"title":"关于妇科细胞学质量保证措施的实践模式：参与2022年美国病理学家学院PAP教育计划的实验室调查结果。","authors":"Abha Goyal, Diane D Davey, Rhona J Souers, Janie Roberson, Michael R Henry, Donna K Russell, Lisa Teot, Eric C Huang, Sana O Tabbara","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2025-0187-CP","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Though numerous quality assurance (QA) measures are in place for the practice of gynecologic cytopathology, many of them are not clearly defined and may be variably used by laboratories worldwide.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To assess current practice patterns regarding the implementation of selected gynecologic cytology QA metrics to help develop guidance for laboratories.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program requesting data regarding their QA measures in gynecologic cytology.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>A total of 562 laboratories responded to the supplemental questionnaire; responses from 511 laboratories were analyzed further. Of 492 laboratories, most considered Papanicolaou (Pap) tests from patients with untreated abnormal cytology in the previous year (386; 78.5%) or with an abnormal gynecologic biopsy finding (concurrent or within the past year) (331; 67.3%) as high-risk for negative rescreening. Many laboratories (436 of 511; 85.3%) required pathologist review of Pap tests for indications other than reactive/abnormal cells (eg, endometrial cells in women 45 years of age and older). For assessing cytologists' performance, 88.5% (399 of 451) of respondents recorded the discrepancy rate between cytologist's and pathologist's interpretations. For monitoring pathologists' performance, most laboratories (243 of 389; 62.5%) evaluated cases with significant cytologic-histologic discrepancy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>The CAP survey provided a detailed assessment of current QA practices regarding gynecologic cytology, which can aid laboratories in making decisions related to enhancement of QA in their setting. As the guidelines and tools for cervical cancer screening evolve, QA metrics will need to be accordingly refined.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice Patterns Regarding Quality Assurance Measures in Gynecologic Cytology: Survey Results of Laboratories Participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists PAP Education Program.\",\"authors\":\"Abha Goyal, Diane D Davey, Rhona J Souers, Janie Roberson, Michael R Henry, Donna K Russell, Lisa Teot, Eric C Huang, Sana O Tabbara\",\"doi\":\"10.5858/arpa.2025-0187-CP\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Though numerous quality assurance (QA) measures are in place for the practice of gynecologic cytopathology, many of them are not clearly defined and may be variably used by laboratories worldwide.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To assess current practice patterns regarding the implementation of selected gynecologic cytology QA metrics to help develop guidance for laboratories.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program requesting data regarding their QA measures in gynecologic cytology.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>A total of 562 laboratories responded to the supplemental questionnaire; responses from 511 laboratories were analyzed further. Of 492 laboratories, most considered Papanicolaou (Pap) tests from patients with untreated abnormal cytology in the previous year (386; 78.5%) or with an abnormal gynecologic biopsy finding (concurrent or within the past year) (331; 67.3%) as high-risk for negative rescreening. Many laboratories (436 of 511; 85.3%) required pathologist review of Pap tests for indications other than reactive/abnormal cells (eg, endometrial cells in women 45 years of age and older). For assessing cytologists' performance, 88.5% (399 of 451) of respondents recorded the discrepancy rate between cytologist's and pathologist's interpretations. For monitoring pathologists' performance, most laboratories (243 of 389; 62.5%) evaluated cases with significant cytologic-histologic discrepancy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>The CAP survey provided a detailed assessment of current QA practices regarding gynecologic cytology, which can aid laboratories in making decisions related to enhancement of QA in their setting. As the guidelines and tools for cervical cancer screening evolve, QA metrics will need to be accordingly refined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2025-0187-CP\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2025-0187-CP","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Practice Patterns Regarding Quality Assurance Measures in Gynecologic Cytology: Survey Results of Laboratories Participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists PAP Education Program.
Context.—: Though numerous quality assurance (QA) measures are in place for the practice of gynecologic cytopathology, many of them are not clearly defined and may be variably used by laboratories worldwide.
Objective.—: To assess current practice patterns regarding the implementation of selected gynecologic cytology QA metrics to help develop guidance for laboratories.
Design.—: A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program requesting data regarding their QA measures in gynecologic cytology.
Results.—: A total of 562 laboratories responded to the supplemental questionnaire; responses from 511 laboratories were analyzed further. Of 492 laboratories, most considered Papanicolaou (Pap) tests from patients with untreated abnormal cytology in the previous year (386; 78.5%) or with an abnormal gynecologic biopsy finding (concurrent or within the past year) (331; 67.3%) as high-risk for negative rescreening. Many laboratories (436 of 511; 85.3%) required pathologist review of Pap tests for indications other than reactive/abnormal cells (eg, endometrial cells in women 45 years of age and older). For assessing cytologists' performance, 88.5% (399 of 451) of respondents recorded the discrepancy rate between cytologist's and pathologist's interpretations. For monitoring pathologists' performance, most laboratories (243 of 389; 62.5%) evaluated cases with significant cytologic-histologic discrepancy.
Conclusions.—: The CAP survey provided a detailed assessment of current QA practices regarding gynecologic cytology, which can aid laboratories in making decisions related to enhancement of QA in their setting. As the guidelines and tools for cervical cancer screening evolve, QA metrics will need to be accordingly refined.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
