The Implementation of Nongynecologic Reporting Systems in Cytopathology Laboratories is Highly Variable: Analysis of Data from a 2020 Supplemental Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology.

CONTEXT:In recent years, several reporting systems have been developed by national and international cytopathology organizations to standardize the evaluation of specific cytopathology specimen types.OBJECTIVE:To assess the current implementation rates, implementation methods, and barriers to implementation of commonly used nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories.DESIGN:Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee and distributed to participants in the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing.RESULTS:Nongynecologic reporting systems with the highest rate of adoption were the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology, 2nd edition (74.1%; 552 of 745); the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (53.9%; 397 of 736); and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (29.1%; 200 of 688). The most common reason given for not adopting a reporting system was satisfaction with a laboratory's current system. Implementation varied among laboratories with regard to which stakeholders were involved in deciding to implement a system and the amount of education provided during the implementation process.CONCLUSIONS:The implementation of nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories was highly variable.