Quality metrics in non-gynecologic cytology: results from the 2022 American Society of Cytopathology survey

Torous, Vanda F.; VandenBussche, Christopher J.; Randolph, Melissa; Cuda, Jacqueline; Manucha, Varsha

doi:10.1016/j.jasc.2023.03.003

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 2248 thyroid FNAC specimens were identified and categorized by seven CPs into diagnostic categories, including unsatisfactory (155), benign follicular nodule (1477), AUS (462), FN (33), SM (41), and malignant (80). The number of thyroid FNAs reviewed by each CP ranged from 96 to 806 cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…34 Failure to provide feedback on performance measures may lead to a lack of motivation and a diminished interest in QA metrics. 33 In conclusion, employing the AUS:M ratio as a metric for assessing AUS utilization, in conjunction with TSV3 PCR results and MDROM, can aid in identifying practice patterns at both individual CP and laboratory levels. By dissecting the practice patterns of each individual, we can measure various aspects of their performance and offer personalized feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Importantly, feedback grounded in QA metrics could be easier to comprehend, as it can be presented alongside laboratory averages and established benchmarks, offering a more visual and objective assessment. 33 Furthermore, drawing on published insights into practice patterns deviating from the target can offer valuable explanations for existing practices. This information can also support behavior modification initiatives aimed at enhancing patient care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach will allow CPs, fellows, and cytotechnologists to assess and understand the morphologic features associated with a positive or negative MT result. Importantly, feedback grounded in QA metrics could be easier to comprehend, as it can be presented alongside laboratory averages and established benchmarks, offering a more visual and objective assessment 33 . Furthermore, drawing on published insights into practice patterns deviating from the target can offer valuable explanations for existing practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This tool will enable individuals to review their performance and observe practice patterns over time, fostering self‐motivation for improvement and adherence to professional benchmarks 34 . Failure to provide feedback on performance measures may lead to a lack of motivation and a diminished interest in QA metrics 33 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring the atypia of undetermined significance: Malignant ratio, ThyroSeq v3 positive call rate, molecular‐derived risk of malignancy, and risk of malignancy as possible quality metric tools in thyroid cytology

Velez Torres,

Curnow,

Tjendra

et al. 2024

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) category is heterogeneous, leading to variations in its use. To prevent excessive usage, the AUS rate should be ≤10%. Although this recommendation aims to maintain diagnostic quality, it lacks supporting data. The AUS:Malignant (AUS:M) ratio has been proposed as a metric tool to evaluate AUS use. Furthermore, integrating ThyroSeq v3 (TSV3) positive call rate (PCR) and the molecular‐derived risk of malignancy (MDROM) have been put forward as performance improvement tools. The authors reviewed their AUS:M ratios, TSV3 PCR, MDROM, and ROM.MethodsThyroid aspirates evaluated in the laboratory (from August 2022 to September 2023) by seven cytopathologists (CPs) were identified. AUS:M ratio, MDROM, ROM, and TSV3 PCR results for the laboratory and each CP were recorded and analyzed.ResultsA total of 2248 aspirates were identified (462 AUS and 80 malignant). The AUS:M ratio for the laboratory was 5.8 (CPs range, 2.8 to 7.3). The TSV3 PCR for the laboratory was 23% (CPs range, 11% to 41%). The MDROM for the laboratory was 19% (CPs range, 9% to 31%), whereas the ROM was 36% (CPs range, 29% to 50%). Linear regression analysis of AUS:M ratio versus TSV3 PCR and MDROM demonstrated a moderate positive correlation but a weak negative correlation to the ROM. Deviations from established targets were attributed to multiple factors.ConclusionThe findings of this study underscore the importance of using a combination of metrics to evaluate diagnostic practices. By dissecting the practice patterns of each CP, the authors can measure different aspects of their performance and provide individualized feedback.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations