Jessica Tracht

Primary HPV testing verification: A retrospective ad-hoc analysis of screening algorithms on women doubly tested for cytology and HPV

To evaluate human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as a primary screening tool, we retrospectively analyzed data comparing (1) HPV testing to the algorithms of the ATHENA Study: (2) cytology alone, (3) cytology with ASCUS triage in women 25–29 and (4) cotesting ≥ 30 or (5) cotesting ≥ 25.

Complete Tissue Submission to Increase Lymph Node Detection in Pelvic Lymph Node Packets Submitted for Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy and Radical Cystectomy

Background. Pelvic lymphadenectomy has prognostic and therapeutic implications in both bladder and prostate cancer. Pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens are fatty and identification of lymph nodes (LNs) can be difficult during the grossing process. We investigated the benefit of a new grossing method requiring entire LN packet submission. Materials/Methods. We introduced a new grossing protocol requiring total submission of LN packets for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical cystectomy (RC). A retrospective review was performed to evaluate clinical and pathologic data for RP (n = 59) and RC (n = 56) cases performed 18 months prior to and 18 months following implementation of the new lymphadenectomy grossing protocol. Results. For RP and RC cases, significantly more LNs were found when total LN packets were submitted with the new technique: mean 14.1 versus 8.7, and mean 25.2 versus 15.9, respectively (P = .007, P = .011). For RP cases, there was no significant change in the number of LN packets submitted for evaluation from the operating room (P = .76). For RC cases, more LNs were found with the new technique despite a significantly fewer number of LN packets sent from the operating room in the cohort that were processed with the new technique: mean 2.2 versus 4.0 LN packets (P < .001). Significantly more paraffin blocks were required using the new grossing method for both RP and RC: mean 13.53 versus 6.9 and mean 19.0 versus 12.4, respectively (P < .001, P = .018). Conclusions. Submitting all additional fatty tissue after palpable identification of LNs can significantly increase the detection of LNs in RP and RC cases.

Fine-needle aspiration findings of a rare hematopoietic neoplasm presenting as obstructive jaundice

A 51‐year‐old female who presented with obstructive jaundice was found to have masses in the pancreatic head and tail as well as suspicious liver and periaortic masses on imaging. Aspiration cytology of the pancreatic tail mass showed abundant large single cells with vacuolated eosinophilic cytoplasm, marked nuclear pleomorphism, large bizarre irregular nuclei, binucleation, and prominent nucleoli. Numerous cells also showed intracytoplasmic black to brown pigmentation. A cell block was obtained and extensive immunohistochemical staining was performed. S‐100, HMB‐45, Sox10, pancytokeratin, CK7, RCC antigen, synaptophysin, HepPar 1, inhibin, CD45, CD21, and CD123 were negative, making melanoma, epithelial malignancies, lymphoma, follicular dendritic and plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms less likely. CD4 and CD56 showed partial positivity, and CD68, CD163, and CD14 were positive, supporting the diagnosis of histiocytic sarcoma. Surgical specimens and immunohistochemistry confirmed the cytologic findings. Histiocytic sarcoma is a rare aggressive malignancy of histiocytic origin with most cases presenting in adults in extranodal sites, most commonly the intestinal tract. Few cases are reported in the literature, presenting diagnostic challenges for cytopathologists when seen on fine‐needle aspiration. We present the first reported case of histiocytic sarcoma presenting as a pancreatic mass, diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA). This entity is rarely described on cytology and arose in a location in which EUS‐FNA is the diagnostic modality of choice. This case study highlights that cytopathologists should be aware of histiocytic sarcoma occurring in extranodal locations accessible by EUS‐FNA and be familiar with the cytomorphologic appearance.

Discrepant HPV/Cytology Co-testing Results: Are There Differences between Cytology-negative vs. HPV-negative Cervical Intra-epithelial Neoplasia?

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to compare cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions subcategorized as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-3 (CIN-3)–positive after a negative cytology result but positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing to those with a negative HR-HPV test but positive cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS]-positive/HPV-negative) and to assess reasons for discrepancies. METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed women who underwent screening with cytology and HPV testing from 2010 through 2013. After a review of surgical specimens and cytology, discrepancies were classified as sampling or interpretation error. Clinical and pathologic findings were compared. RESULTS In total, 15,173 women (age range, 25-95 years; 7.1% were aged < 30 years) underwent both HPV and cytologic testing, and 1184 (8.4%) underwent biopsy. Cytology was positive in 19.4% of specimens, and HPV was positive in 14.5%. Eighty-four CIN-3–positive specimens were detected, including 55 that tested ASCUS-positive/HPV-positive, 11 that tested negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM)/HPV-positive, 10 that tested ASCUS-positive/HPV-negative, 3 that tested NILM/HPV-negative, and 5 tests that were unsatisfactory. There was no significant difference between NILM/HPV-positive and ASCUS-positive/HPV-negative CIN-3 in terms of size, time to occurrence, the presence of a cytopathic effect, screening history, race, or age. Six of 11 NILM/HPV-positive cases were reclassified as ASCUS, indicating an interpreting error of 55% and a sampling error of 45%. No ASCUS-positive/HPV-negative cases were reclassified. Seven cases of CIN-3 with positive cytology were HPV-negative. CONCLUSIONS There are no significant clinical or pathologic differences between NILM/HPV-positive and ASCUS-positive/HPV-negative CIN-3–positive specimens. Cytologic sampling or interpretation remains the main reason for discrepancies. However, HPV-negative CIN-3 with positive cytology exists and may be missed by primary HPV screening. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:795-805.