Application of the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology in routine reporting of pleural effusion and assessment of the risk of malignancy

Real-World Evidence of Intra-institutional Performance Variation in Indefinite Diagnosis of Pleural Effusion Cytology

CONTEXT.—

Pleural effusion cytology has been widely used in the investigation of pathologic fluid accumulation in pleural spaces. However, up to one-tenth of the cases were not given a definitive diagnosis. These cases have largely been neglected in the bulk of the literature.

OBJECTIVE.—

To provide real-world data on indefinite diagnoses including "atypia of uncertain significance" (AUS) and "suspicious for malignancy" (SFM) in pleural effusion cytology and to investigate pathologists' practice patterns on using these diagnostic categories.

DESIGN.—

We reported the diagnoses of 51 675 cases. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were used to analyze the relationships between different diagnostic categories and pathologists' practice patterns and possible explanatory variables.

RESULTS.—

The diagnoses AUS and SFM were reported in 4060 cases (7.86%) and 1554 cases (3.01%) in the cohort, respectively. The mean rates for these indefinite diagnoses varied up to 3-fold between pathologists. Correlations were found between AUS and SFM, as well as between indefinite diagnoses and negative for malignancy (NFM). No correlations were found between pathologists' years of experience or case volume and the rates of indefinite diagnosis or diagnostic certainty.

CONCLUSIONS.—

A real-world baseline for the rates of indefinite diagnoses in pleural effusion cytology is provided in this large retrospective study. Pathologists show significant variation in their use of indefinite diagnostic categories, and the tendency to use these ambiguous terms was not correlated with individuals' experience or case volume. How to untangle the intertwined relationship between the uncertainty of indefinite diagnoses and that of NFM requires future prospective studies.

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of The International System (TIS) for reporting serous fluid cytopathology. Our aims were to present the pooled malignancy rate of each TIS reporting category and the diagnostic accuracy of cytology using this system. Database search using a predefined strategy was followed by study selection, data extraction, study quality assessment, and statistical analysis. Data derived from 16 eligible studies were pooled. The pooled rates of malignancy were as follows: 27% (95% CI; 16%-41%) for "nondiagnostic" (ND), 11% (95% CI; 7%-18%) for negative for malignancy" (NFM), 49% (95% CI; 37%-61%) for "atypia of undetermined significance" (AUS), 90% (95% CI; 81%-95%) for "suspicious for malignancy" (SFM), and 100% (95% CI; 98%-100%) for "positive for malignancy" (MAL). Studies performed exclusively in cancer hospitals showed higher pooled malignancy rates, compared with academic and community hospitals serving the general population, in the ND [40% (95% CI; 21%-62%) vs. 22% (95% CI; 11%-39%)], NFM [20% (95% CI; 13%-30%) vs. 9% (95% CI; 5%-17%)], and AUS categories [55% (95% CI; 47%-63%) vs. 46% (95% CI; 31%-62%)]. Notably, the difference was significant in the NFM category ( P =0.04). When both SFM and MAL cytology interpretations were considered as malignant outcomes, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 68.74% (95% CI; 59.90%-76.39%) and 98.81% (95% CI; 98.18%-99.22%), respectively. In addition, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was found to be 170.7 (95% CI; 96.2-303.3). Despite its strengths, our study also had some limitations. Therefore, future large-scale longitudinal studies could strengthen the findings of this review.

Deciphering Serous Effusions Using the New International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology

Introduction Serous effusion cytopathology is a minimally invasive, cost-effective procedure and plays a crucial role in diagnosing a spectrum of pathological conditions, ranging from benign to malignant. The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC) offers a standardized framework for reporting serous effusions, aiding in better communication and clinical decision-making. Aims and objectives This study aimed to categorize effusions using the ISRSFC reporting system. In addition, we sought to estimate the risk of malignancy (ROM) for each diagnostic category and evaluate the diagnostic performance of conventional smear versus cell block techniques. Materials and methods This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Pathology over one year. We applied the ISRSFC criteria to serous effusions and categorized them accordingly. The ROM for each category was assessed with histopathology serving as the gold standard. Then, the diagnostic performance including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated using conventional smear and cell block techniques. Results The study included 185 serous effusion cases, with ages ranging from two months to 85 years. The male-to-female ratio was 1.1:1. Most effusions were pleural fluids constituting about 133 cases (71.9%), followed by peritoneal fluids (47 cases, 25.4%) and pericardial fluids (five cases, 2.7%). Among the fluids, four (2.2%) were diagnosed as non-diagnostic (ND), 152 (82.2%) as negative for malignancy (NFM), four (2.2%) as atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), nine (4.8%) as suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and 16 (8.6%) as malignant (MAL). The overall ROM was 25% for ND, 8.5% for NFM, 50% for AUS, 77% for SFM, and 100% for MAL. The sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were superior when combining conventional smear with the cell block technique. Conclusions Our findings underscore the use of ISRSFC in categorizing effusion samples, assessing the ROM, and guiding clinical management. Moreover, our study highlights the benefits of employing a combined approach using conventional smears and cell blocks for enhanced diagnostic accuracy in serous effusions.

Diagnostic accuracy of International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: A systematic review and meta-analysis in malignancy diagnosis

This study conducts the first meta-analysis to assess the aggregated risk of malignancy associated with each category of the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC) for reporting serous effusion cytology, while also evaluating diagnostic accuracy. PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched using the keywords "(pleural, peritoneal, and pericardial effusions) AND (serous effusion cytology) OR (International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology)". Articles underwent risk of bias assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. After excluding inadequate samples, a meta-analysis determined sensitivity and specificity for different cutoff points, including "atypical considered positive," "suspicious of malignancy considered positive," and "malignant considered positive." Summary receiver operating characteristic curves assessed diagnostic accuracy, and the diagnostic odds ratio was pooled. Sixteen retrospective cross-sectional studies, totaling 19,128 cases, were included. Sensitivity and specificity for the "atypical and higher risk categories" considered positive were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68%-84%) and 95% (95% CI, 93%-97%) respectively. For the "suspicious for malignancy and higher risk categories" considered positive, sensitivity and specificity were 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%) and 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%) respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for the "malignant" category considered positive for malignancy were 70% (95% CI, 60%-77%) and 99% (95% CI, 98%-99%), respectively. The pooled area under the curve ranged from 85% to 89.5% for each cutoff. This meta-analysis underscores the ISRSFC's accuracy in reporting serous fluid cytology. It emphasizes the diagnostic importance of the "suspicious" and "malignant" categories in identifying malignancy, and the role of the "benign" category in ruling out malignancy.

Comprehensive evaluation of benign and malignant etiologies of different serous effusions with the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: A multi-institutional study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC) was introduced globally in 2019 in response to the absence of a standardized reporting system for serous fluid cytology. This study presents experiences implementing this system across three distinct hospitals in Taiwan.

METHODS

A total of 6177 serous fluid specimens in three hospitals in Taiwan between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and reclassified according to the ISRSFC. Cytohistological correlation and chart review were further performed to investigate etiologies and risks of malignancy (ROMs).

RESULTS

Reclassification showed that 34 (0.7%) of 4838 pleural effusions were nondiagnostic (ND), 4086 (84.5%) were negative for malignancy (NFM), 201 (4.2%) were atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 92 (1.9%) were suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and 425 (8.8%) were malignant (MAL). The 1231 ascites cases contained 13 (1.1%) ND, 1004 (81.6%) NFM, 53 (4.3%) AUS, 31 (2.5%) SFM, and 130 (10.6%) MAL specimens. In pleural effusions, the ROM was 2.9% for ND, 14.0% for NFM, 52.2% for AUS, 85.9% for SFM, and 95.1% for MAL. In ascites, it was 15.4% for ND, 19.1% for NFM, 52.8% for AUS, 83.9% for SFM, and 92.3% for MAL. In pericardial effusions, it was 0.0% for ND, 11.6% for NFM, 30.8% for AUS, 100.0% for SFM, and 95.2% for MAL. Different effusions' most common benign and malignant etiologies were also disclosed.

CONCLUSIONS

These multi-institutional data have determined the diagnostic usefulness of the ISRSFC, which provides pathologists and physicians with invaluable assistance in correctly classifying effusions for further management.

Review of the impact of the International System for Serous Fluid Cytopathology

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytology (TIS) has been proposed by an expert working team composed of the International Academy of Cytology and the American Society of Cytopathology, following an international survey. Since its introduction, the TIS has gained worldwide acceptance, and this review aims to assess its global impact. A literature search revealed 25 studies which have presented data on the impact of the TIS. Most of them provide data, including risk of malignancy (ROM) for each diagnostic category, separately for pleural, peritoneal and pericardial effusions, while a few do not separate them. A few studies focus on specific diagnoses like mesothelioma on specific types of fluids or more specific issues like the optimal fluid volume for cytology or interobserver variability. A synopsis of the data from the literature search is presented in four tables. The ROM assessment is discussed, as well as interobserver variability and the use of ancillary diagnostic immunochemistry. In conclusion, our review of the published data suggests that the TIS is a valid classification scheme that has been widely accepted by pathologists globally, is highly reproducible and makes a valuable contribution to clinical therapeutic management.

Application of international system for reporting serous fluid cytology (ISRSFC) in effusion samples-a prospective study in an oncology setting

INTRODUCTION

Serous fluid cytology is a cost-effective procedure that can help in the diagnosis, staging, and origin of the malignancy. Recently introduced International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytology (ISRSFC) standardizes the reporting of serous fluid cytology in the 5 categories: Category 1: Nondiagnostic (ND), Category 2: negative for malignancy (NFM), Category 3: atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), Category 4: suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and Category 5: malignant (MAL). Here, we present our experience adopting the ISRSFC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented ISRSFC in December of 2019 at our institute and included a cohort of 555 prospective effusion samples. The pertinent surgical pathology, radiology, and clinical follow-up were also extracted to assess the risk of malignancy (ROM) and performance parameters.

RESULTS

The assessment of interobserver reliability indicated substantial concordance (κ = 0.717) between the 2 investigators for serous fluid categorization. A total of 555 effusion samples were classified as follows: ND, 14 (2.5%); NFM, 394 (71%); AUS, 12 (2.2%); SFM, 13 (2.3%); and MAL, 122 (22%). The ROM for the ND, NFM, AUS, SFM, and MAL categories was 57.1%, 9.9%, 66.7%, 66.7%, and 97.2%, respectively, in peritoneal effusions and 57.1%, 7.1%, 66.7%, 100%, 100%, respectively, in pleural effusions. The ROM for NFM and MAL was 0% and 100%, respectively, in pericardial effusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the proposed ISRSFC can help in achieving uniformity and reproducibility in diagnoses and also help in risk stratification in cytology. ISRSFC was successfully adopted by our cytology laboratory and clinicians, with overall diagnostic performance similar to previous studies.

The Role of Novel Tiered Reporting System in Serous Fluid Cytology and Risk of Malignancy Assessment: A Retrospective Study in a Tertiary Care Center

Background

Serous effusion cytology (SEC) reporting is important for the management of the cancer patient. The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytology (ISRSFC) provides tiered reporting terminology to standardize practice, looking into the risk of malignancy (MAL) for each category. In this study, we have assessed the utility of the ISRSFC and reported our experience at a tertiary cancer center.

Materials and Methods

Serous fluid cytology reported from January 2019 to December 2020 was categorized according to ISRSFC diagnostic categories: nondiagnostic (ND), negative for MAL (NFM), atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), suspicious for MAL (SFM), and MAL. The risk of MAL (ROM) and performance parameters were calculated.

Results

A total of 2150 serous effusions including 1160 pleural, 929 peritoneal, and 61 pericardial effusions from 2071 patients were reported. There were 742 males and 1329 females. The patient's age ranged from less than 1 yr to 95 years. The volume of the sample ranged from 0.5 ml to 2000 ml. There were 114 ND (5.32%), 1068 NFM (49.67%), 144 AUS (6.69%), 82 SFM (3.81%), and 742 MAL (34.51%) cases. Adenocarcinoma was the most common MAL involving serous fluids (91.50%). The calculated ROM was 15.38% for ND, 24.26% for NFM, 62.96% for AUS, 79.16% for SFM, and 100% for MAL. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were, respectively, 68.04%, 96.96%, 96.35%, 72.07%, and 81.33%.

Conclusion

ISRSFC provides consistent reporting terminology and the ROM for each category aids in clinical correlation and management.

Categorisation of peritoneal serous effusions using the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology-A study on gynaecological samples

BACKGROUND

Cytology of serous effusions is an indispensable diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of non-neoplastic as well as neoplastic effusions, aiding in the categorisation, staging, and prognostication of the patient. This study focuses on reclassifying cases of peritoneal fluid cytology following the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS), highlighting various challenges encountered and adding to the body of data regarding the risk of malignancy (ROM), focussing on peritoneal effusions due to gynaecological causes.

METHODS

Peritoneal effusion samples were retrieved from our department's archives and reclassified according to the TIS. The ROM for each category was calculated based on available surgical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 818 peritoneal effusions were studied. Following the definitions and guidelines of the TIS, the cases were reclassified with 125 (15.2%) in the category of non-diagnostic (ND), 595 (72.7%) as negative for malignancy (NFM), 26 (3.2%) as atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 12 (1.5%) as suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and 60 (7.3%) as malignant (MAL). The respective ROM values for each category were 16.9%, 12.1%, 50%, 80%, and 100%, respectively. By considering the MAL and SFM groups as positive, and the ND, NFM, and AUS groups as negative, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined as 85.2%, 36.7%, 99.1%, 91.7%, and 84.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Peritoneal cytology categorisation following the proposed TIS offered a practical approach for categorisation of the fluids received. The ROMs reported in our study were mostly concordant with those published according to the TIS.

Risk of malignancy assessment of the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology: Experience in a community hospital setting and comparison with other studies

BACKGROUND

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (ISRSFC) was published recently to provide standard reporting terminology for serous fluid. To date, several ISRSFC reclassification studies have reported a wide range of diagnostic category frequency and the associated risk of malignancy (ROM). Herein, the authors applied the ISRSFC to report pleural and peritoneal effusions retrospectively in a community hospital setting.

METHODS

With Internal Review Board approval, 446 peritoneal effusion specimens and 299 pleural fluid specimens from 576 patients in three community hospitals over a 12-month period were reviewed and reclassified according to the ISRSFC.

RESULTS

After reclassification, in pleural effusions, 18 (5.0%) were nondiagnostic (ND), 273 (76.0%) were negative for malignancy (NFM), 18 (5.0%) were atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 6 (1.7%) were suspicious for malignancy (SFM), and 44 (12.3%) were malignant (MAL). In peritoneal effusions, after reclassification, 11 (5.5%) were ND, 168 (77.1%) were NFM, 9 (4.1%) were AUS, 2 (0.9%) were SFM, and 27 (12.4%) were MAL. The calculated ROM was 0.0% for ND, 1.8% for NFM, 37.5% for AUS, 83.3% for SFM, and 100.0% for MAL in peritoneal effusions; and the ROM was 8.3% for ND, 1.2% for NFM, 44.4% for AUS, and 100.0% for both SFM and MAL in pleural effusions. Further analysis demonstrated notable heterogeneity among published ISRSFC reclassification studies, although the overall ROMs did not differ significantly from the ISRSFC-determined ROMs (all p values were > .05 for mean ROM comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggested the necessity for each laboratory to perform its own ROM analysis based on its statistics for ISRSFC-tiered classification terminology.

A retrospective analysis of serous effusions based on the newly proposed international system for reporting serous fluid cytopathology: a report of 3633 cases in an oncological center

Background

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS) was recently proposed. We retrospectively applied TIS recommendations for reporting the cytological diagnosis of serous effusions and reported our experience.

Methods

All the serous effusions from January 2018 to September 2021 were retrieved from the database. Recategorization was performed using the TIS classification, the risk of malignancy (ROM) was calculated for each TIS category. In addition, on the basis of the original TIS classification, we further subdivided the TIS category IV (suspicious for malignancy, SFM) into 2 groups (IVa and IVb) according to cytological characteristics (quality and quantity) to explore the necessity of SFM subclassification. The performance evaluation was carried out using different samples (pleural, peritoneal and pericardial effusions) and preparation methods (conventional smears, liquid-based preparations and cell blocks).

Results

A total of 3633 cases were studied: 17 (0.5%) were diagnosed as ‘nondiagnostic’ (I, ND), 1100 (30.3%) as ‘negative for malignancy’ (II, NFM), 101 (2.8%) as ‘atypia of undetermined significance’ (III, AUS), 677 (18.6%) as ‘suspicious for malignancy’ (IV, SFM), and 1738 (47.8%) as ‘malignant’ (V, MAL). The ROMs for the categories were 38.5%, 28.6%, 52.1%, 99.4% and 100%, respectively. The ROM for SFM was significantly higher than that for AUS (P < 0.001), while the difference between the ROMs for IVa and IVb was insignificant. The sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of liquid-based preparations were all superior to those of conventional smears and cell blocks in detecting abnormalities. Using the three preparation methods simultaneously had the highest sensitivity, NPV and diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion

Serous effusion cytology has a high specificity and positive predictive value (PPV), and TIS is a user-friendly reporting system. Liquid-based preparations could improve the sensitivity of diagnosis, and it is best to use three different preparation methods simultaneously for serous effusion cytologic examination.

Application of the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS): A Retrospective Institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Cytology of serous effusions is an important diagnostic tool for the diagnosis of cancer, staging and prognosis of the patient. Herein, we retrospectively applied the TIS on reporting serous cytopathology and provided the corresponding risk of malignancy (ROM).

METHODS

Pleural, pericardial and peritoneal effusion samples were retrieved from the archives of our department and reclassified according to the TIS. The ROM for each category was calculated based on available surgical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total 3790 effusions were available for the study. 1292 pleural samples were reclassified: 27 (2.1%) non-diagnostic (ND), 1014 (78.5 %) negative for malignancy (NFM), 86 (6.6 %) atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 29 (2.3 %) suspicious of malignancy (SFM) and 136 (10.5%) malignant (M). 241 pericardial samples were reclassified: 4 (1.6 %) as ND, 173 (71.8 %) as NFM, 10 (4.1 %) as AUS, 7 (3 %) as SFM, and 47 (19.5%) as M. 2257 peritoneal cases were re-categorized as follows: 31 (1.4 %) as ND, 1897 (84 %) as NFM, 39 (1.7 %) as AUS, 53 (2.4 %) as SFM, and 237 (10.5 %) as M. The ROM was, respectively, for each of the aforementioned categories, 18.5%, 15%, 45.3%, 93%, 100% in pleural effusions, 25%, 13.2%, 35%, 100%, 100% in pericardial effusions and 19.3%, 10.4%, 43.5%, 100%, 100% in peritoneal effusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Pleural, pericardial, and peritoneal cytology show high specificity and moderate sensitivity in the evaluation of serous effusions. The ROM reported in our study was mostly concordant with ROM published by the TIS.

Application of the International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology with Cytohistological Correlation and Risk of Malignancy Assessment

The International System for Reporting Serous Fluid Cytopathology (TIS) classifies serous effusions into five categories: non-diagnostic (ND), negative for malignancy (NFM), atypia of unknown significance (AUS), suspicious for malignancy (SFM) and malignant (MAL). The main objectives of this classification comprise the establishment of a universal code of communication between cytopathologists and clinicians and histopathologists, as well as between different laboratories worldwide, paving the way for the setting of clinical management guidelines based on the risk of malignancy assessment for each diagnostic category. We retrieved the total number of pleural and peritoneal effusion cases of our department for the three-year time period between 2018 and 2020, yielding a total of 528 and 500 cases, respectively. We then proceeded to reclassify each specimen according to TIS guidelines and calculate the risk of malignancy (ROM) for each category by searching each patients’ histology records, medical history and clinical follow-up. For pleural effusions, 3 (0.57%) cases were classified as ND, 430 (81.44%) cases as NFM, 15 (2.84%) as AUS, 15 (2.84%) as SFM and 65 (12.31%) as MAL. ROM amounted to 0%, 5.3%, 33.33%, 93.33% and 100% for each category, respectively. As far as peritoneal effusions are concerned, 6 (1.2%) were categorized as ND with ROM estimated at 16.66%, 347 (69.4%) as NFM (ROM = 9%), 13 (2.6%) as AUS (ROM = 38.46%), 12 (2.4%) as SFM (ROM = 83.33%) and 122 (24.4%) as MAL (ROM = 100%). Our results underline the utility of the current classification, both as a means of communication between doctors of different specialties and as general guidelines for the further clinical management of patients.

The international system for serous fluid cytopathology: Interobserver agreement

BACKGROUND

A number of categorization systems had been developed for the reporting of cytology specimens with the aim of providing uniform definitions, criteria, and diagnostic terminology. The intention of these systems is to improve reproducibility of diagnostic categorization with standardized estimates of malignancy risk. Required for the success of these systems is a high level of interobserver reproducibility for category assignment. Recently, the international system for serous fluid cytopathology (TIS) was proposed using the categories nondiagnostic, negative for malignancy, atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. Little data exists documenting the interobserver agreement for these categories.

DESIGN

A search of the cytology records at the University of Missouri was performed for all pleural fluid specimens obtained between January 2014 and December 2019. A total of 200 specimens were reviewed independently by three board-certified cytopathologists. Specimens were characterized as nondiagnostic, negative, AUS, suspicious for malignancy, and malignant. Interobserver agreement was analyzed using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Overall observer agreement was 68% and chance-corrected weighted agreement (weighted kappa) was 0.63. Agreement was good for categories negative and malignant, but poor for categories atypia of uncertain significance, and suspicious for malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

The TIS has performance characteristics similar to other cytologic classification schemes. Interobserver agreement is best for the negative (76%) and malignant (81%) categories. Interobserver agreement is poor for the category's AUS, and suspicious for malignancy. This is similar to interobserver agreement associated with other published categorization systems.