A brief review of the WHO reporting system for lung cytopathology

Evaluating the Risk of Malignancies of the Diagnostic Categories Proposed by the World Health Organization System for Reporting Lung Cytopathology: A 2-Year Single Institutional Experience

INTRODUCTION

The WHO System of Reporting Lung Cytopathology proposed a 5-tiered system in 2023. We report the risk of malignancies (ROMs) of bronchial washing/lavage and percutaneous fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens. We also evaluated the change of ROMs when image correlation is required.

METHODS

Lung cytology cases in 2021 and 2022 with histologic follow-up were included. CT reports were reviewed to identify cases with a solid nodule/tumor but benign cytological findings. These were reassigned from the "benign" to "non-diagnostic" category, and the ROMs were re-estimated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,031 bronchial washing/lavage and 206 FNAs were identified. The ROMs of bronchial washing/lavage were "non-diagnostic" 56.5% (13/23), "benign" 41.9% (320/764), "atypical" 71.7% (71/99), "suspicious for malignancy" 94.7% (72/76), and "malignant" 100% (70/70). The ROMs of FNAs were "non-diagnostic" 66% (33/50), "benign" 58.2% (39/67), "atypical" 70% (28/40), "suspicious for malignancy" 96.2% (25/26), and "malignant" 100% (70/70). When image finding was considered, cases initially assigned as "benign" were re-classified to "non-diagnostic" with decreases in ROMs for the "benign" category.

CONCLUSIONS

Malignancy risks associated with the WHO System of Reporting Lung Cytopathology diagnostic groups were reported. Image correlation for the "benign" category led to a decrease in case number and ROM.

Retrospective application of WHO reporting system for lung cytopathology with assessment of risk of malignancy

INTRODUCTION

The recently introduced World Health Organization (WHO) Reporting System for Lung Cytopathology presents 5 diagnostic categories with corresponding risk of malignancy (ROM) and management protocols. This study uses the system to categorize our institutional respiratory tract cytology specimens, evaluating ROM and diagnostic accuracy for each category.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective analysis (May 2020 to August 2021), the following respiratory cytology specimens were classified based on the WHO categories: bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), bronchial wash/bronchial brushings (BB/BW), endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC), sputum, biopsy imprint (BI), and endotracheal wash. Exclusions comprised pleural effusions and EBUS-TBNA from mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. Correlation of cytologic and histopathologic diagnoses was performed to assess ROM collectively and individually.

RESULTS

A total of 1518 respiratory samples (BAL [968], BW/BB [380], EBUS-TBNA [42], FNAC [32], sputum [80], BI [11] and endotracheal wash [5]) of 1410 patients were screened, of which 522 cases (34.3%) had histopathologic correlation. One hundred forty-one cases (9.3%) were Insufficient/Inadequate/Non-Diagnostic (ND), 1221 (80.4%) were Benign (B), 3 (0.2%) were Atypical (A), 32 (2.1%) were Suspicious for malignancy (SM) and 121 (8.0%) were Malignant (M). The estimated ROM for each category was 49.2% for ND, 13.3% for B, 66.6% for A, 81.5% for SM and 92.7% for M. FNAC and EBUS-TBNA exhibited the highest sensitivity (100%) compared with BW/BB (66.3%). Specificity ranged from 96.8% to 100% across the samples, while diagnostic accuracy varied from 58.8% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the WHO reporting system enhances standardized terminology, aiding clinicians in informed decision-making and improving patient care through accurate risk assessment of malignancy.

Second opinion for pulmonary and pleural cytology is valuable for patient care

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic cytology can be challenging due to limited procured material or overlapping morphology between benign and malignant entities. In such cases, expert consultation might be sought. This study aimed to characterize all pulmonary and pleural cytology consult cases submitted to our practice and provide recommendations on approaching difficult cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All thoracic (pulmonary and pleural) cytology cases submitted for expert consultation to the University of Michigan (MLabs) from 2013 to mid-2022 were reviewed. Cases where cytology was only part of a hematopathology or surgical pathology consult were excluded. Patient demographics, specimen location, procedure performed, referring diagnosis, and our diagnoses were recorded for each case. Diagnoses were categorized according to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology recommendations for pulmonary and effusion cytology. Discordant diagnoses were stratified as major or minor. Data was analyzed using chi-square analysis and logistic models.

RESULTS

We received 784 thoracic cytology consult cases, including 530 exfoliative samples and 307 fine-needle aspirations. The most common anatomic locations sampled were the bronchial wall (n = 194, 23%), lung nodule (n = 322, 38%), and pleura (n = 296, 35%). 413 cases had a diagnostic discrepancy (48.3%), with 274 (66%) minor and 139 (34%) major discrepancies. By location, pleural effusion specimens had the highest probability of a discrepant diagnosis (P = 0.003). By specimen type, fine-needle aspiration samples were significantly more likely to have a discrepant diagnosis (P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the thoracic cytology cases submitted for expert second opinion had diagnostic discrepancies. Consequently, consulting a tertiary medical care center with cytopathology expertise for challenging thoracic cytology diagnoses is beneficial.

The rationale for the development and publication of the World Health Organization reporting systems for cytopathology and a brief overview of the first editions of the lung and pancreaticobiliary systems

The International Academy of Cytology has joined with the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop international systems for reporting the cytopathology of lung, pancreas and biliary tract, lymph nodes, soft tissue, liver, breast, and kidney and adrenal gland. The WHO recently published the reporting systems for lung and pancreaticobiliary cytopathology. The objectives of this collaboration are to standardize the reporting of cytopathology; improve the quality of reporting by establishing the key diagnostic cytopathological features of entities and neoplasms; provide detailed best-practice guidelines in sampling techniques, specimen handling and processing, and the use of ancillary techniques; and facilitate communication between cytopathologists and clinicians to improve patient care. Each WHO system has defined specific categories and terminology for reporting cytopathology, and each category has an estimated risk of malignancy as far as the current literature allows and a suggested diagnostic management algorithm to assist clinicians. The WHO systems recognize that local medical and pathology infrastructure will vary, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, and the WHO systems and their diagnostic management recommendations have been developed to allow them to be applied worldwide in all resource settings. The process of the selection of editors and authors and the writing and editing responsibilities has used the same model as that used for the fifth edition WHO Classification of Tumours, to which the WHO cytopathology systems are directly linked. This review provides the rationale and history of this joint International Academy of Cytology, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and WHO cytopathology project and a brief overview of the WHO reporting systems for lung and pancreaticobiliary cytopathology.