Targeted education as a method for reinforcing Paris System criteria and reducing urine cytology atypia rates

International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Current Issues in Bladder Cancer. Working Group 1: Comparison of Bladder Cancer Grading System Performance

Grade is a key prognostic factor in determining progression in nonmuscle invasive papillary urothelial carcinomas. The 2 most common grading methods in use worldwide are the World Health Organization (WHO) 2004 and 1973 schemes. The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) organized the 2022 consensus conference in Basel, Switzerland on current issues in bladder cancer and tasked working group 1 to make recommendations for future iterations of bladder cancer grading. For this purpose, the ISUP developed in collaboration with the European Association of Urology a 10-question survey for their memberships to understand the current use of grading schemes by pathologists and urologists and to ascertain the areas of potential improvements. An additional survey was circulated to the ISUP membership for their opinion on interobserver variability in grading, reporting of urine cytology, and challenges encountered in grade assignment. Comprehensive literature reviews were performed on bladder cancer grading prognosis and interobserver variability along with The Paris System for urine cytology. There are notable differences in practice patterns between North American and European pathologists in terms of used grading scheme and diagnosis of papillary urothelial neoplasm of low malignant potential. Areas of common ground include difficulty in grade assignment, a desire to improve grading criteria, and a move towards subclassifying high-grade urothelial carcinomas. The surveys and in-person voting demonstrated a strong preference to refine current grading into a 3-tier scheme with the division of WHO 2004 high grade into clinically relevant categories. More variable opinions were voiced regarding the use of papillary urothelial carcinoma with low malignant potential.

Use of nongynecologic cytologic-histologic correlation to identify patterns of error: An institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Quality management practices empower cytology laboratories to deliver consistent, high-quality patient care. Monitoring of key performance indicators is one way by which laboratories can identify patterns of error and focus their improvement activities. Cytologic-histologic correlation (CHC) identifies error by retrospectively reviewing cytology cases when discordant surgical pathology diagnoses are reported. Analysis of CHC data can elucidate patterns of error and direct quality improvement initiatives.

METHODS

CHC data of nongynecologic cytology specimens were reviewed over a 3-year period (2018-2021). Errors were separated by anatomic site and classified as either sampling or interpretive errors.

RESULTS

A total of 364 discordant cases were identified out of 4422 cytologic-histologic pairs (a discordant rate of 8%). The majority (272; 75%) were sampling errors, with fewer interpretive errors (92; 25%). Sampling errors were found to occur most commonly in lower urinary tract and lung. Interpretive errors were most commonly found in lower urinary tract and thyroid.

CONCLUSIONS

Nongynecologic CHC data can be a valuable resource for cytology laboratories. By studying the types of errors, quality improvement activities can be targeted toward problem areas.

Leveraging thoughtful quality metric selection for individual and system improvements: the atypical category and use of dashboards

Quality management is integral to the practice of cytopathology, especially given the heavily manual workflows and expanding ancillary testing requirements inherent to the cytopathology laboratory. Monitoring quality data like turnaround time, specimen unsatisfactory rates, and diagnostic category utilization rates allows for better understanding of performance with opportunities for targeted improvement if there are variations from that which is expected. However, there are costs to quality monitoring including the time and resources needed, and, in already taxed systems, quality management risks being viewed as just another box to check. While there are mandated quality metrics that must be collected by cytology laboratories, thoughtful selection of key performance indicators can be of tremendous benefit in helping to better understand complex laboratory processes and directing improvement endeavors where needed. The following short communication is a discussion on quality management in the cytopathology laboratory from 3 Cytopathology Quality Management Directors. The discussion focuses on monitoring the atypical reporting category with an emphasis on how trending and visualizing quality metrics can provide laboratories with key data.