Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The 2019 American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology management guidelines recommend that patients with an unsatisfactory Papanicolaou (Pap) test (UPT) and negative human papillomavirus (HPV) cotest undergo repeat age-based screening in 2 to 4 months. The rationale is that a negative HPV test in the setting of an UPT may reflect an inadequate sample and therefore should not be interpreted as truly "negative." For patients 25 years and older who are cotested, if HPV is positive for the 16 or 18 genotypes, direct referral for colposcopy is recommended. Our study aimed to determine if a negative HPV cotest result is predictive of the absence of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and whether these patients may be called back for repeat testing at an interval longer than 2 to 4 months. METHODS:Follow-up cervical cytology and biopsy results in women with UPT and HPV cotests from January 2017 to December 2021 were collected. Original UPT and HPV cotest results were correlated with the follow-up Pap and biopsy results. RESULTS:There were 1,496 (2.28%) UPT cases out of 65,641 total Pap tests. Among the 1,496 UPT cases, 1,010 (67.5%) had HPV cotesting; 676 (45.1%) were followed by repeat Pap or biopsy within 4 months and 850 (56.8%) within 12 months. The total follow-up rate was 81%, with a range of 3 days to 36 months. The HSIL rate in HPV-positive cases was 5.7% (3/53) vs 0.4% (2/539) (P = .006) in HPV-negative cases. In UPT, HPV cotesting showed negative predictive values for low-grade and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion detection of 98.5% and 99.6%, respectively, while positive predictive values were 19% and 5.7%. CONCLUSIONS:A negative HPV cotest in individuals with UPT predicted the lack of HSIL in our study. Compliance with the recommended follow-up time of 2 to 4 months for women with UPT was low (45.1%). Our study suggests that women with UPT and negative HPV cotest may be safely called back at an interval longer than 4 months.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Our study assesses whether the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) offers any benefit over the original cytology classification, and measures interobserver agreement. METHODS:Four cytopathologists retrospectively blindly classified preoperative cytology by MSRSGC from 101 resected salivary tumors. Consensus MSRSGC diagnoses were correlated with surgical pathology diagnoses and compared with the original cytology classification. Diagnostic parameters were calculated for both systems. Interobserver variability was assessed. RESULTS:The original cytology classification vs MSRSGC had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 75.0% vs 78.3%, 97.1% vs 98.0%, 91.2% vs 94.7%, and 90.1% vs 90.0%, respectively. The original cytology classification risk of neoplasm (RON) was 91.7% for "negative for malignancy" and 100.0% for other categories. The MSRSGC RON was 71.4% in category II (nonneoplastic) and 100.0% in all other categories. The original cytology classification risk of malignancy (ROM) ranged from 0.0% for "atypical" to 100.0% for "positive for malignancy." The MSRSGC ROM ranged from 0.0% in categories I (nondiagnostic) and III (nonneoplastic) to 100.0% in category VI (malignant). Weighted agreement using the MSRSGC was 92% (Gwet AC1, 0.84); unweighted agreement was 69% (Gwet AC1, 0.64). MSRSGC category IVA (benign neoplasm) was most likely to show interobserver agreement, with complete agreement in 67% of cases. CONCLUSIONS:The MSRSGC performs similarly to the original cytology classification and shows relatively high interobserver agreement.

Myoepithelial carcinoma (MEC) of soft tissue, also known as malignant myoepithelial tumor, is an uncommon malignancy. Cytologic diagnosis of this entity is challenging due to its rarity and heterogeneous morphology. We report a case of MEC in a 22-year-old man, who presented with a 6.5 cm soft tissue mass on his right distal forearm that has been enlarging over the past 3 months. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) revealed abundant isolated neoplastic cells ranging from spindled cells to epithelioid and plasmacytoid morphology in a myxoid background. These cells showed moderate cytologic atypia characterized by high-nuclear/cytoplasmic ratio, irregular nuclear contours, and prominent nucleoli. The cytoplasm varied from dense to vacuolated and occasionally rhabdoid with intracytoplasmic inclusions. Scattered bi- and multinucleated cells were identified. A diagnosis of high-grade malignancy was made with the differential diagnosis including rhabdomyosarcoma and melanoma. A subsequent core biopsy of the tumor showed immunoreactivity for pan-cytokeratins, calponin, p63, and smooth muscle actin. INI-1 was lost. SOX-10 and Melan-A were negative. Molecular studies showed loss of SMARCB1 (INI-1) and CDKN2A. Gene fusion studies did not detect any fusion. A diagnosis of soft tissue MEC was made which is a challenge on FNA due to several cytologic mimickers including rhabdomyosarcoma, epithelioid sarcoma, extrarenal rhabdoid tumor, extra-axial chordoma and melanoma. Recognition of the biphasic cell population in a myxoid background and a battery of immunohistochemical stains are crucial for accurate diagnosis.

We report two cases of an uncommon benign lesion, retroperitoneal ganglioneuroma, first diagnosed on fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology. Our first case presented with nausea, constipation, vomiting, and neutropenia after three cycles of chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment, while our second patient presented with seemingly unprovoked abdominal pain and progressive neuropathy. Both underwent computed tomography (CT) scans, in which a soft tissue mass was found in the retroperitoneal space in each patient. An endoscopic ultrasound guided (EUS) FNA was performed on both patients, and as a result, the masses were diagnosed as retroperitoneal ganglioneuromas. As retroperitoneal ganglioneuromas have low incidence of proliferation, invasive surgery was avoided in favor of routine follow-up imaging. Cytologically, both masses showed large, scattered ganglion cells with abundant cytoplasm and large nuclei against a background of wavy spindle cells with elongated nuclei. Histologically, both were positive for S-100. When an EUSFNA is performed and quality material is collected, a diagnosis of retroperitoneal ganglioneuroma may be established, preventing invasive surgery and its accompanying risks in favor of routine follow-up imaging.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The American College of Radiology (ACR) Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (TI-RADS) was developed to standardize thyroid ultrasound reports and predict the likelihood of malignancy. In our study, we aimed to correlate indeterminate thyroid fine needle aspiration cytology cases with preceding ultrasound (US) ACR TI-RADS scores and concurrent molecular testing results to examine how well the use of the ACR TI-RADS in our institution predicted which patients with indeterminate cytology might harbor molecular alterations. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of thyroid nodules. Patients with US reports that included TI-RADS scores, fine needle aspiration specimens with indeterminate cytology (Bethesda class III-V), and molecular testing results were included. RESULTS:A total of 46 indeterminate cytology cases had had preceding US reports with TI-RADS scores and molecular testing (Bethesda class III, n = 37; Bethesda class IV, n = 6; Bethesda class V, n = 3). Most of the indeterminate cases had had a TI-RADS score of TR4 (31 of 46; 67.39%) or TR5 (9 of 46; 19.57%). RAS mutations were the most common alteration (n = 12). Of the 46 cases, 22 (47.85%) showed no alterations. Ten cases proceeded to surgery, of which seven displayed malignancies. CONCLUSIONS:Molecular testing in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules provided valuable information for TR4 and TR5 lesions; however, the TR2 and TR3 lesions often had no molecular alterations. These findings highlight the potential value of including US imaging features when assessing the significance of indeterminate cytology findings.