Paul A VanderLaan1, Michiya Nishino2. 1. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: pvanderl@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of the indeterminate category of atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) for thyroid fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) should be kept to a minimum. Here, we investigate the utility of combining AUS utilization rates with Afirma (Veracyte, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) genomic sequencing classifier (GSC) molecular testing results as a quality improvement metric for describing cytopathologist practice patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thyroid FNAs evaluated in our laboratory by 9 cytopathologists from December 2017 to July 2021 were stratified by Bethesda diagnostic category, and Afirma GSC testing results for AUS cases were compiled and correlated with AUS call rates. RESULTS: Over this period, the laboratory AUS rate was 22.3% (672 of 3008), with an individual cytopathologist range of 11.6% to 39.3%. Afirma GSC testing had suspicious (GSC-S) results in 29% (48 of 167) of cases, with a cytopathologist range of 5% to 67%. Linear regression analysis of individual AUS rates versus Afirma GSC-S rates demonstrated no significant relationship between these 2 variables. However, based on the pattern of AUS use and GSC-S rates, a novel conceptual framework for understanding cytopathologist practice patterns is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Combining molecular testing results with AUS call rates of thyroid nodules can provide a more nuanced explanation of cytopathologist practice patterns, and can be utilized to provide directed feedback to bring individual cytopathologist diagnostic category use in line with laboratory averages or published benchmarks.
INTRODUCTION: The use of the indeterminate category of atypia of undetermined significance (AUS) for thyroid fine-needle aspirations (FNAs) should be kept to a minimum. Here, we investigate the utility of combining AUS utilization rates with Afirma (Veracyte, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) genomic sequencing classifier (GSC) molecular testing results as a quality improvement metric for describing cytopathologist practice patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thyroid FNAs evaluated in our laboratory by 9 cytopathologists from December 2017 to July 2021 were stratified by Bethesda diagnostic category, and Afirma GSC testing results for AUS cases were compiled and correlated with AUS call rates. RESULTS: Over this period, the laboratory AUS rate was 22.3% (672 of 3008), with an individual cytopathologist range of 11.6% to 39.3%. Afirma GSC testing had suspicious (GSC-S) results in 29% (48 of 167) of cases, with a cytopathologist range of 5% to 67%. Linear regression analysis of individual AUS rates versus Afirma GSC-S rates demonstrated no significant relationship between these 2 variables. However, based on the pattern of AUS use and GSC-S rates, a novel conceptual framework for understanding cytopathologist practice patterns is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Combining molecular testing results with AUS call rates of thyroid nodules can provide a more nuanced explanation of cytopathologist practice patterns, and can be utilized to provide directed feedback to bring individual cytopathologist diagnostic category use in line with laboratory averages or published benchmarks.