UCSF

Context

The College of American Pathologists periodically surveys laboratories to determine changes in cytopathology practices. We report the results of a 2011 gynecologic cytology survey.

Objective

To provide a cross-sectional survey of gynecologic cytology practices in 2010.

Design

In 2011, a survey was sent to 1604 laboratories participating in the College of American Pathologists gynecologic cytology interlaboratory comparison education program and proficiency testing programs requesting data from 2010 on the following topics: terminology/reporting, cytotechnologist workload, quality assurance, reagents, and ancillary testing.

Results

Six hundred and twenty-five laboratories (39%) replied to the survey. The nonstandard use of "low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion" is used by most laboratories to report the presence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with possibility of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Most laboratories also report the presence or absence of cells from the transformation zone. Most respondents do not limit cytotechnologist screening workload during the work shift. Only about one-third of laboratories (188 of 582; 32%) use image-assisted screening devices. Rapid prescreening as a quality assurance measure is used by only 3.5% (21 of 594) of the laboratories. When used for screening, most laboratories use the imager for retrospective review of slides to detect human locator and interpretive errors. Most laboratories receive both liquid-based cytology samples (mainly ThinPrep, Hologic, Marlborough, Massachusetts) and conventional Papanicolaou tests. Expiration dates of liquid-based cytology test vials are not usually recorded.

Conclusions

The field of gynecologic cytology is evolving rapidly. These survey results offer a snapshot of national gynecologic cytology practices in 2010.