Treatment of specimens that contain excessive blood can effectively reduce the unsatisfactory rate; however, a considerable number of unsatisfactory specimens remain. We evaluated the effectiveness of reprocessing unsatisfactory specimens that had too few squamous cells and contained microscopic red blood cells (TFSQRBC).Out of the 688 unsatisfactory specimens at microscopic screening, 197 (28.63%) were TFSQRBC that were reprocessed by treatment of glacial acetic acid (GAA). Red blood cells were observed clogging the pores in the filter of the ThinPrep device. After reprocessing, 129 (68.48%) yielded a satisfactory diagnosis, which accounted for a reduction of the unsatisfactory rate by 18.25%. In the restored satisfactory specimens, abnormal diagnoses of 1 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (0.78%), 3 atypical glandular cells (AGC) (2.33%), and 13 atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) (10.08%) were made. The abnormal diagnoses in this group of patients were significantly higher than that in the general population screened.Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep (TP) specimens of TFSQRBC can reduce the unsatisfactory rate of the TP Pap test significantly and is a cost-effective measure. The initially unsatisfactory specimens are more likely to represent cases with an abnormal diagnosis, which also justifies the effort of reprocessing this group of specimens. Adjustment of the pore size on the ThinPrep filter device may reduce the interference of red blood cells.

Background: Afirma gene expression classifier (GEC) is an adjunct to thyroid fine needle aspiration shown to improve pre-operative risk assessment and reduce unnecessary surgery of indeterminate thyroid nodules. Genomic sequencing classifier (GSC) is a newer version aiming to improve specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of Afirma testing. There are limited studies comparing GSC vs GEC. This study was undertaken to compare these classifiers in terms of diagnostic performance and effect on clinical management of indeterminate thyroid nodules. Methods:The study cohort consisted of patients with thyroid nodules that had a recurrent cytologic diagnosis of atypia of undetermined significance/follicular lesion of undetermined significance (AUS/FLUS) and were tested by either GEC or GSC.Patient demographics, nodule size, and clinical follow-up were recorded. Benign call rate (BCR) of Afirma testing, rate of subsequent surgery (RSS), rate of histologyconfirmed malignancy (RHM), as well as diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, PPV, negative predicative value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated and compared between GSC and GEC cohorts.Results: Among 264 AUS/FLUS thyroid nodules, 127 and 137 were tested with GEC and GSC, respectively. Compared to GEC, GSC demonstrated increased BCR (77.3% vs 52%), decreased RSS (31.4% vs 51.2%), greater RHM (29% vs 9.8%) associated with a suspicious Afirma result, as well as improved specificity (82.8% vs 54.5%), PPV (29% vs 9.8%), and diagnostic accuracy (83.9% vs 56.7%), while maintaining high sensitivity and NPV. Conclusion:Afirma GSC substantially improved BCR, RSS, RHM, and diagnostic performance, enhancing appropriate triage and thereby helped avoid unnecessary surgery in AUS/FLUS thyroid nodules.

Objectives Biomarker expression evaluation for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) is an essential prognostic and predictive parameter for breast cancer and critical for guiding hormonal and neoadjuvant therapy. This study compared quantitative image analysis (QIA) with pathologists’ scoring for ER, PgR, and HER2. Methods A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 1,367 invasive breast carcinomas, including all histopathology subtypes, for which ER, PgR, and HER2 were analyzed by manual scoring and QIA. The resulting scores were compared, and in a subset of HER2 cases (n = 373, 26%), scores were correlated with available fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results. Results Concordance between QIA and manual scores for ER, PgR, and HER2 was 93%, 96%, and 90%, respectively. Discordant cases had low positive scores (1%-10%) for ER (n = 33), were due to nonrepresentative region selection (eg, ductal carcinoma in situ) or tumor heterogeneity for PgR (n = 43), and were of one-step difference (negative to equivocal, equivocal to positive, or vice versa) for HER2 (n = 90). Among HER2 cases where FISH results were available, only four (1.0%) showed discordant QIA and FISH results. Conclusions QIA is a computer-aided diagnostic support tool for pathologists. It significantly improves ER, PgR, and HER2 scoring standardization. QIA demonstrated excellent concordance with pathologists’ scores. To avoid pitfalls, pathologist oversight of representative region selection is recommended.

No abstract

No abstract