Introduction: In 2020, the World Health Organization-International Agency for Research on Cancer/International Academy of Cytology (WHO-IARC IAC) joint project was commenced to develop standardized nomenclature and diagnostic criteria in cytopathology internationally. Our institution has been coding all respiratory cytological specimens in a similar fashion for over 10 years. Our aim was to analyse the effectiveness of our respiratory cytology coding system by calculating the estimated risk of malignancy (ROM) and rates of each diagnostic category. Methods: Over a 2 year period, all endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), bronchial brushing, bronchial washing, bronchial lavage, and sputum specimens reported at our institution were analysed. For each specimen, the diagnostic code, the relevant indication for each diagnostic procedure, the diagnosis, and the presence or absence of a positive corresponding biopsy were recorded. Results: In total, 1,432 respiratory cytological specimens from 945 patients over a 2-year period were analysed. 467 specimens were confirmed to be associated with a malignant process. The overall ROM for respiratory cytology specimens was 37.7% for nondiagnostic, 18.1% for benign, 46.7% for atypical, 85.7% for suspicious for malignancy, and 91.9% for malignant. For each diagnostic procedure, the ROM increased from the benign to malignant categories. Discussion/Conclusion: Our ROM rates for overall respiratory cytology specimens and for EBUS-TBNA, bronchial brushing, and bronchial washing specimens separately are concordant with other major international studies. With the WHO-IARC IAC joint project in progress and an international respiratory cytology coding system being developed, our study has the potential to add value by providing indicative ROM rates, which can be used to inform the development of this new classification system. Our rates of diagnostic accuracy are in keeping with international standards, which support the accuracy of our data.

Keywords:
Risk of malignancy, Respiratory cytology, Coding system, Classification, Standardized terminology, Nomenclature
1.
Layfield LJ, Esebua M. A modified Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology system for reporting respiratory cytology specimens: implications for estimates of malignancy risk and diagnostic accuracy. Diagn Cytopathol. 2021;4911:1167–72.
2.
Yoshizawa A, Hiroshima K, Takenaka A, Haba R, Kawahara K, Minami Y, et al. Cytology reporting system for lung cancer from the Japan Lung Cancer Society and the Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology: an extensive study containing more benign lesions. Acta Cytologica. 2022;66(2):124–33.
3.
Canberk S, Montezuma D, Aydin O, Demirhas MP, Denizci B, Akbas M, et al. The new guidelines of Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for respiratory specimens: assessment of risk of malignancy and diagnostic yield in different cytological modalities. Diagn Cytopathol. 2018;46(9):725–9.
4.
Zhou F, Shum E, Moreira AL. Molecular cytology of the respiratory tract and pleura. Cytopathology. 2022;33(1):14–22.
5.
Heerink WJ, de Bock GH, de Jonge GJ, Groen HJM, Vliegenthart R, Oudkerk M. Complication rates of CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy: meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(1):138–48.
6.
Cibas ES, Ali SZ. The Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology. Thyroid. 2009;19(11):1159–65.
7.
Rosenthal DL, Wojcik EM, Kurtycz DFI. The Paris system for reporting urinary cytology. Springer; 2016.
8.
Mezei T. Current classification systems and standardized terminology in cytopathology. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2021;61(3):655–63.
9.
Layfield LJ, Esebua M, Schmidt RL, Witt BL. Malignancy risk associated with the EBUS-FNA diagnostic categories nondiagnostic, benign, atypical, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant for mediastinal lymph node aspirate specimens. J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015;4(5):276–81.
10.
Layfield LJ, Baloch Z, Elsheikh T, Litzky L, Rektman N, Travis WD, et al. Standardized terminology and nomenclature for respiratory cytology: the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol. 2016;445:399–409.
11.
Fernández-Bussy S, Labarca G, Canals S, Caviedes I, Folch E, Majid A. Diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for mediastinal staging in lung cancer. J bras pneumol. 2015;41(3):219–24.
12.
Jalaly JB, Ioannidis I, Layfield LJ, Baloch Z. Overview of diagnostic terminology and reporting. In: Layfield LJ, Baloch Z, editors. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for reporting respiratory cytology: definitions, criteria, explanatory notes, and recommendations for ancillary testing. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 1–6.
13.
Layfield LJ, Esebua M, Dodd L, Giorgadze T, Schmidt RL. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines for respiratory cytology: reproducibility of categories among observers. CytoJournal. 2018;15:22.
14.
Valderrabano P, Khazai L, Thompson ZJ, Leon ME, Otto KJ, Hallanger-Johnson JE, et al. Cancer risk stratification of indeterminate thyroid nodules: a cytological approach. Thyroid. 2017;27(10):1277–84.
15.
Policarpio-Nicolas MLC, Wick MR. False-positive interpretations in respiratory cytopathology: exemplary cases and literature review. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;361:13–9.
16.
Divisi D, Zaccagna G, Barone M, Gabriele F, Crisci R. Endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS/TBNA): a diagnostic challenge for mediastinal lesions. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Mar;6(5):92.
17.
Chen C-C, Bai C-H, Lee K-Y, Chou Y-T, Pan S-T, Wang Y-H. Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of bronchial brushing cytology in lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2021;129(9):739–49.
18.
Layfield LJ, Dodd L, Factor R, Schmidt RL. Malignancy risk associated with diagnostic categories defined by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary guidelines. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122(6):420–7.
© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2022
You do not currently have access to this content.