Standardized terminology systems in cytopathology

The Implementation of Nongynecologic Reporting Systems in Cytopathology Laboratories Is Highly Variable: Analysis of Data From a 2020 Supplemental Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology

CONTEXT

In recent years, several reporting systems have been developed by national and international cytopathology organizations to standardize the evaluation of specific cytopathology specimen types.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current implementation rates, implementation methods, and barriers to implementation of commonly used nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories.

DESIGN

Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee and distributed to participants in the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing.

RESULTS

Nongynecologic reporting systems with the highest rate of adoption were the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology, 2nd edition (74.1%; 552 of 745); the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (53.9%; 397 of 736); and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (29.1%; 200 of 688). The most common reason given for not adopting a reporting system was satisfaction with a laboratory's current system. Implementation varied among laboratories with regard to which stakeholders were involved in deciding to implement a system and the amount of education provided during the implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories was highly variable.

Developing a Quality Improvement Implementation Taxonomy for Organizational Employee Wellness Initiatives

BACKGROUND

Standardized taxonomies (STs) facilitate knowledge representation and semantic interoperability within health care provision and research. However, a gap exists in capturing knowledge representation to classify, quantify, qualify, and codify the intersection of evidence and quality improvement (QI) implementation. This interprofessional case report leverages a novel semantic and ontological approach to bridge this gap.

OBJECTIVES

This report had two objectives. First, it aimed to synthesize implementation barrier and facilitator data from employee wellness QI initiatives across Veteran Affairs health care systems through a semantic and ontological approach. Second, it introduced an original framework of this use-case-based taxonomy on implementation barriers and facilitators within a QI process.

METHODS

We synthesized terms from combined datasets of all-site implementation barriers and facilitators through QI cause-and-effect analysis and qualitative thematic analysis. We developed the Quality Improvement and Implementation Taxonomy (QIIT) classification scheme to categorize synthesized terms and structure. This framework employed a semantic and ontological approach. It was built upon existing terms and models from the QI Plan, Do, Study, Act phases, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains, and the fishbone cause-and-effect categories.

RESULTS

The QIIT followed a hierarchical and relational classification scheme. Its taxonomy was linked to four QI Phases, five Implementing Domains, and six Conceptual Determinants modified by customizable Descriptors and Binary or Likert Attribute Scales.

CONCLUSION

This case report introduces a novel approach to standardize the process and taxonomy to describe evidence translation to QI implementation barriers and facilitators. This classification scheme reduces redundancy and allows semantic agreements on concepts and ontological knowledge representation. Integrating existing taxonomies and models enhances the efficiency of reusing well-developed taxonomies and relationship modeling among constructs. Ultimately, employing STs helps generate comparable and sharable QI evaluations for forecast, leading to sustainable implementation with clinically informed innovative solutions.

The international system for reporting serous fluid cytopathology: The initial project survey

OBJECTIVE

An international panel in the field of body fluid cytology, supported by the International Academy of Cytology and the American Society of Cytopathology, conducted a survey to identify opinions and explore existing practice patterns regarding body fluid cytopathology.

METHODS

The study group, formed during the 2018 European Congress of Cytology in Madrid, generated a survey of 54 questions related to the practice and taxonomy of body fluid cytology. The survey was available online from 28 August 2018 until 10 December 2018. Participants were invited through the websites and listserves of the professional societies.

RESULTS

The survey collected 593 international participant responses. Questions pertained to practice patterns and diagnostic language. Information was collected regarding credentials, work setting, work volume (4-10,000 samples) and years in practice (0-60 years). The responses revealed variations in diagnostic practice and sample management. Direct smears and ThinPrep® preparations are the most popular methods, followed by Cytospin® and SurePath®. Most (70%) respondents perform ancillary studies on their material, with over 50% preferring a cell block preparation. Approximately 32% indicated that they are capable of performing genetic studies on the samples. Nearly 78% of participants would accept a two-stage cytology report, with a preliminary assessment followed by a final diagnosis that accounts for ancillary studies to generate a more precise cytological interpretation. Approximately one-third (36%) never report adequacy on body fluid samples. Most (78%) report a general category result (negative, atypical, suspicious, or positive) and 22% provide a detailed surgical pathology type report. Most (73.6%) participants believe that both Papanicolaou stains and a modified Giemsa stain (eg Diff Quik) should be standard preparations for all serous fluid cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the survey demonstrated strong support for the development of a unified system for reporting body fluid cytopathology among respondents.

[New aspects in fine needle biopsies of the lymph nodes]

BACKGROUND

The cytology of lymph nodes is a cost-effective method with a short turnaround time and low risk to patients that delivers valuable information on the cause of the lymphadenopathies.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the value of lymph node cytology in the diagnosis of lymph node swellings.

METHODS

Analysis of the causes of the controversially discussed aspects of lymph node cytology. Presentation of the diagnostic groups of lymph node cytology according to the Sydney system.

RESULTS

The technical aspects of lymph node sampling during fine needle biopsy, as well as the subsequent preparation of the correctly fixed direct smears and the triage of the sample for the auxiliary studies, may pose a significant challenge for some puncturers. The whole spectrum of modern pathologic auxiliary studies can be applied to correctly triaged cytologic samples. The diagnoses of fine needle biopsies of the lymph nodes can be divided into five groups according to the recently proposed Sydney reporting system: insufficient/non-diagnostic, benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant. Further details concerning the diagnosis as well as recommendations on how to proceed are additionally included in cytologic reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement of lymph node sampling as well as the technical aspects of the sample handling, including the application of auxiliary studies, considerably increase the diagnostic value of fine needle biopsy of the lymph nodes. Wide implementation of the usage of the diagnostic groups for reporting fine needle biopsies of the lymph nodes can standardize reporting and improve communication with other clinical specialists.

Diagnostic accuracy of Thinprep® in cervical lymph node aspiration: Assessment according to the Sydney system

BACKGROUND

Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is a reliable technique that has been used for many years in lymphadenopathy diagnosis. Although conventional smear is the standard approach in FNAC, liquid-based cytology (LBC) is accepted as an alternative method. Reporting standardization is a significant gap in fine-needle aspiration cytology, leading to failure in pathologist-clinician dialog and interobserver variability. In 2020, an expert panel proposed the Sydney system for classifying and reporting lymph node aspiration cytology. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of LBC in lymph node aspiration cytology under the guidance of the Sydney system.

METHODS

Five hundred-four LBC samples were reevaluated and classified according to the Sydney system. Of these, n = 24 were categorized as L1-inadequate/non-diagnostic, n = 283 as L2-benign, n = 36 as L3- atypical cells of undetermined significance/atypical lymphoid cells of uncertain significance (AUS/ALUS), n = 48 as L4-suspicious, and n = 113 as L5-malignant. Four hundred-one samples were histopathologically confirmed. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC and the risk of malignancy for each Sydney category were calculated.

RESULTS

The results were as follows: sensitivity 98.97%; specificity 98.60%; positive predictive value 94.80%; negative predictive value 99.29%; and overall diagnostic accuracy 98.75%. The ROM was 16.6% for L1, 0.7% for L2, 88.8% for L3, and 100% for L4 and L5.

CONCLUSION

LBC is suitable for use in lymph node aspiration under the guidance of the Sydney system and has high diagnostic accuracy. Future comprehensive studies will increase the applicability of the Sydney system and minimize interobserver variability.

A Novel Approach to Classification and Reporting of Lymph Node Fine-Needle Cytology: Application of the Proposed Sydney System

Fine-needle cytology (FNC) is a useful diagnostic tool in the first line evaluation of lymphadenopathy of unknown aetiology. Nevertheless, considering the large number of conditions presenting as lymphadenopathy, lymph node cytology represents a challenging scenario. Recently, an expert panel published the proposal of the Sydney system for performing classification and reporting of lymph node cytopathology; the aim of the present study was to evaluate the applicability of this system. Thus, 300 lymph node FNCs performed over 1 year were reviewed and categorized according to the Sydney system classification. Overall, n = 20 cases (6.7%) were categorized as L1-inadequate/non-diagnostic; n = 104 (34.7%) as benign (L2); n = 25 (8.3%) as atypical (L3); n = 13 (4.3%) as suspicious (L4), and n = 138 (46%) as malignant (L5). FNC diagnoses were correlated with histopathologic and clinical follow-up to assess the diagnostic accuracy and the risk of malignancy (ROM) for each diagnostic category. Statistical analysis showed the following results: sensitivity 98.47%, specificity 95.33%, positive predictive value 96.27%, negative predictive value 98.08%, and accuracy 97.06%. The ROM was 50% for the category L1, 1.92% for L2, 58.3% for L3, and 100% for L4 and L5. In conclusion, FNC coupled with ancillary techniques ensures satisfactory diagnostic accuracy and the implementation of the Sydney system may improve the practice of cytopathologists.

High Sensitivity of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background/Aims

The diagnostic work-up of lymphadenopathy is challenging but important to determine the correct therapy. Nevertheless, few studies have addressed the topic of endosonography (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in lymphadenopathy. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy and safety of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNB) in intrathoracic and intraabdominal lymphadenopathy.

Methods

In a tertiary care center, patients with lymphadenopathy referred for EUS-guided sampling were included prospectively from 2014 to 2019 (NCT02360839). In all cases, EUS-FNB (22 gauge) and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) (25 gauge) were performed. The patients were randomized to the first needle pass with FNB or FNA. Study outcomes were the diagnostic accuracy and adverse event rate.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included (median age: 69 years [interquartile range, 59–76]; 24/48 females [50%]). The final diagnoses were metastasis (n=17), lymphoma (n=11), sarcoidosis (n=6), and inflammatory disease (n=14). The diagnostic performance of the two modalities was comparable, including a high sensitivity for metastatic nodes (EUS-FNB: 87% vs. EUS-FNA: 100%, p=0.5). The sensitivity for lymphoma was borderline superior in favor of EUS-FNB (EUS-FNB: 55% vs. EUS-FNA: 9%, p=0.06). No adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions

In lymphadenopathy, both EUS-FNB and EUS-FNA are safe and highly sensitive for metastatic lymph node detection. Lymphoma diagnosis is challenging regardless of the needle used.

Use of standardized terminologies in clinical practice: A scoping review

AIM

To explore the use and impact of standardized terminologies (STs) within nursing and midwifery practice.

INTRODUCTION

The standardization of clinical documentation creates a potential to optimize patient care and safety. Nurses and midwives, who represent the largest proportion of the healthcare workforce worldwide, have been using nursing-specific and multidisciplinary STs within electronic health records (EHRs) for decades. However, little is known regarding ST use and impact within clinical practice.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted (2019) across PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and CENTRAL in collaboration with the Five Country Nursing and Midwifery Digital Leadership Group (DLG). Identified studies (n = 3547) were reviewed against a number of agreed criterion, and data were extracted from included studies. Studies were categorized and findings were reviewed by the DLG.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty three studies met the inclusion criteria. These were conducted across 25 different countries and in various healthcare settings, utilising mainly nursing-specific (most commonly NANDA-I, NIC, NOC and the Omaha System) and less frequently local, multidisciplinary or medical STs (e.g., ICD). Within the studies, STs were evaluated in terms of Measurement properties, Usability, Documentation quality, Patient care, Knowledge generation, and Education (pre and post registration). As well as the ST content, the impact of the ST on practice depended on the healthcare setting, patient cohort, nursing experience, provision of education and support in using the ST, and usability of EHRs.

CONCLUSION

Employment of STs in clinical practice has the capability to improve communication, quality of care and interoperability, as well as facilitate value-based healthcare and knowledge generation. However, employment of several different STs and study heterogeneity renders it difficult to aggregate and generalize findings.

Current classification systems and standardized terminology in cytopathology

The history of classification systems and the search for a unified nomenclature in cytopathology spans several decades and expresses the preoccupation of all those involved to make cytopathology a reliable diagnostic tool and a trusted screening method. Early classification schemes, applicable to exfoliative and aspiration cytology, attempted to set some basic standards for how non-gynecological cytopathology findings should be reported. While useful in establishing some basic guidelines, these were not specific to the various fields of non-gynecologic cytopathology, often burdened with specific problems. Cytopathology has evolved tremendously in the last couple of decades, undoubtedly boosted by the emergence of various classification schemes that, more than ever, are based on evidence gathered by professionals across the globe. The benefit of classification systems and standardized nomenclature in cytopathology is to provide useful, clear, and clinically relevant information for clinicians and ultimately to provide the best patient care. Standardized reporting systems make cytopathology reports more meaningful and robust. It now became standard that these include by default elements, such as adequacy criteria, diagnostic groups, risk of malignancy (ROM), and recommendations for patient management. In this brief review, we attempted to summarize how these classification schemes emerged and how they are reshaping the landscape of diagnostic cytopathology.

Salivary Gland FNA Diagnostics in a Real-Life Setting: One-Year-Experiences of the Implementation of the Milan System in a Tertiary Care Center

The Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) was introduced in 2018 following other organ specific cytopathological reporting systems and it aimed at bringing a practical, evidence-based, user-friendly classification system with characterization and management algorithms. At the Department of Pathology, Fimlab Laboratories, Tampere, Finland all salivary fine needle aspirations (FNAs) have been given cytopathological diagnoses according to the MSRSGC since January 2018. Analyses of a one-year-period (January 2018–December 2018) consisted of 183 salivary FNA samples from 138 patients with correlation to histopathology in 90 cases with surgical follow-up. The MSRSGC performance in patient based analysis was as follows: accuracy was 90.9%, sensitivity was 61.5%, specificity was 100%, positive predictive value was 100%, and negative predictive value was 89.4%, respectively. Risks of malignancy (ROMs) in MSRSGC categories were: 0.0% (0/15) in non-diagnostic category, 100.0% (1/1) in non-neoplastic category biased by only one falsely-negative lymphoma case, 14.3% (1/7) in atypia of undetermined significance category, 0.0% (0/28) in benign neoplasm category, 27.3% (3/11) in neoplasm of uncertain malignant potential category, and 100% for both suspicious for malignancy (4/4) and malignancy (4/4) categories, respectively. The MSRSGC has been proven as a reliable classification system in salivary gland FNA routine diagnostics in a tertiary care center.