Pancreaticobiliary tract cytology: Journey toward “Bethesda” style guidelines from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology

Lester James Layfield; Martha Bishop Pitman; Richard M. DeMay; Vinod B. Shidham

doi:10.4103/1742-6413.134441

View/Download PDF

Buy Reprints

PDF

Translate this page into:

Editorial

2014

:11;

18

doi:

10.4103/1742-6413.134441

Pancreaticobiliary tract cytology: Journey toward “Bethesda” style guidelines from the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology

Lester James Layfield_MD, Martha Bishop Pitman¹_MD, Richard M. DeMay²_MD, Vinod B. Shidham^3,*_{MD, FRCPath, FIAC}

Address: Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

1Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

2Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

3Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, Wayne State University School of Medicine, DMC, and Karmanos Cancer Center, Detroit, MI, USA

*Corresponding author

Received: 2013-05-08, Accepted: 2014-03-20, Published: 2014-06

Licence

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

The current series of articles related to the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology (PSC) guidelines for pancreaticobiliary cytology are the product of significant efforts by many experts working on different PSC guidelines committees.[1] The PSC guidelines for cytologic interpretation and reporting of variety of body site specimens have been described previously.[2 3 4 5 6] These are comparable to the guidelines from the National Cancer Institute for cervical cytology[7] and fine needle aspiration cytology of breast and thyroid.[8 9] Most of these systems are designed to stratify the risk of malignancy with diagnostic categories for guiding appropriate management algorithms.

The current guidelines[10 11 12 13 14] follow the strategies comparable to the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. The guidelines not only consider diagnostic categories and criteria, but also attempt to provide details on other aspects including techniques for obtaining specimens, which patient would benefit most from cytologic evaluation, information on ancillary testing, and patient follow-up/management. The scheme addresses the wide spectrum of approaches to acquire diagnostic material for cytopathologic evaluation from a variety of pancreaticobiliary lesions. A six-tiered system is recommended for the standardized nomenclature in pancreaticobiliary cytology. The categories proposed are: Non-diagnostic, negative, atypical, neoplastic (benign or other), suspicious, and positive.[12]

“Atypical” and “suspicious” categories have relatively well reported malignancy risks.[15 16] Potentially, the most challenging and controversial category is “neoplastic (benign and other)” with the widest range of interpretations. The entities included in this category range from innocuous lesions such as benign cystic neoplasms (serous cystadenoma) to others like pre-malignant mucinous cysts (cystic mucinous neoplasm and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm), low-grade well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms. The premalignant mucinous cysts without unequivocal features of malignancy would fall in this category with very wide management options.[17] The NETs similarly have many challenges with controversies related to their categorical assignment. Due to their malignant potential, some favor these neoplasms be categorized as “malignant.” European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) and World Health Organization categorize low and intermediate grades of these as “tumor” or “neoplasm” in the absence of high-grade criteria (>50 mitoses per 50 high power field for NETs of pancreas and >20 mitoses per 10 high power field or Ki-67 index >20% for NETs of other sites).[18 19] Undoubtedly, the lesions with unequivocal cytological features of either small cell carcinoma or large cell undifferentiated carcinoma belong to the “malignant” category. An increasing trend with incidental NETs in surgically unfit older patients, favors a conservative approach for small NETs as an alternative management strategy. The categories proposed in the current guidelines permit practical flexibility by surgeons in order to assure that conservative strategies may be a better option than the surgery. This would be more confusing if these cases of low grade neoplasms automatically fell in a “malignant” category!

Utilization of ancillary testing including molecular testing in cystic lesions is also addressed in appropriate areas.[13] With input from the guidelines by the National Cancer Center Network (www.nccn.org) and by the multidisciplinary international groups in the field of pancreatology, post cytologic evaluation and management are also covered.[14]

A “triple test” approach similar to that applied for FNA of breast lesions is recommended. Patient management should be determined by correlating the clinical findings in concert with endoscopic, imaging, and cytologic findings. Effective application of such guidelines is heavily dependent on the collaborative, multidisciplinary interactions between endoscopists, pancreaticobiliary surgeons, radiologists, and cytopathologists. The current CytoJournal supplement issue with individual articles[10 11 12 13 14] covering various areas highlighted above would be a great resource under Open access platform[20 21] for all involved in the management of pancreaticobiliary lesions. These PSC guideline articles published under Open Access charter may be disseminated by multiple journals/platforms[22 23 24 25 26] including e-CytoJournal issue http://www.cytojournal.com/browse.asp?sabs=n.[27]

EDITORIAL/PEER-REVIEW STATEMENT

The current article is an editorial related to PSC (Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology) Pancreaticobiliary tract cytology guidelines submitted by the committee members as authors and published directly without peer review after copy-editing. These guidelines were agreed to be published as Open Access articles under Creative Commons Legal Code (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), this intellectual property (IP) to be retained in public domain.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Drs. Nora K. Frisch and Yasin Ahmed (cytopathology fellows at Wayne State University School of Medicine/Detroit Medical Center) for their editorial and copy-editing assistance.

REFERENCES

Pancreaticobiliary Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology. Available from: http://www.papsociety.org/pscoforum/index.php
[Google Scholar]
Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for the examination of fine-needle aspiration specimens from thyroid nodules. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Task Force on Standards of Practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;15:84-9.
[Google Scholar]
Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for fine-needle aspiration procedure and reporting. The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Task Force on Standards of Practice. Mod Pathol. 1997;10:739-47.
[Google Scholar]
Guidelines of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for the examination of cytologic specimens obtained from the respiratory tract. Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Task Force on Standards of Practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;21:61-9.
[Google Scholar]
Papanicolau Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines for educational notes, disclaimers, and similar comments on reports of cervical cytology specimens. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:282-5.
[Google Scholar]
Layfield LJ, Elsheikh TM, Fili A, Nayar R, Shidham V, Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology. Review of the state of the art and recommendations of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology for urinary cytology procedures and reporting: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Practice Guidelines Task Force. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:24-30.
[Google Scholar]
The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: Developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute workshop in Bethesda, MD, December 12-13, 1988. Diagn Cytopathol. 1989;5:331-4.
[Google Scholar]
Baloch ZW, Cibas ES, Clark DP, Layfield LJ, Ljung BM, Pitman MB, . The National Cancer Institute Thyroid fine needle aspiration state of the science conference: A summation. Cytojournal. 2008;5:6.
[Google Scholar]
The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. National Cancer Institute Fine-Needle Aspiration of Breast Workshop Subcommittees. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:295-311.
[Google Scholar]
Adler D, Schmidt CM, Al Haddad M, Barthel JS, Ljung BM, Merchant NB, Romagnuolo J, Shaaban AM, Simeone D, Pitman MB, Layfield LJ, . Clinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for Cytologic study and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic fine needle aspiration: The papanicolaou society of Cytopathology recommendations for pancreatic and biliary cytology. CytoJournal. 2014;11(Suppl S1):1.
[Google Scholar]
Brugge WR, DeWitt J, Klapman JB, Ashfaq R, Shidham V, Chhieng D, . Techniques for cytologic sampling of pancreatic and bile duct lesions: The Papanicolaou society of Cytopathology Guidelines. CytoJournal. 2014;11(Suppl S1):2.
[Google Scholar]
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, Genevay M, Stelow E, Mino Kenudson M, . Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. CytoJournal. 2014;11(Suppl S1):3.
[Google Scholar]
Layfield LJ, Ehya H, Filie AC, Hruban RH, Jhala N, Joseph L, . Utilization of ancillary studies in the cytologic diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic lesions: The papanicolaou society of cytopathology guidelines for pancreatobiliary cytology. CytoJournal. 2014;11(Suppl S1):4.
[Google Scholar]
Kurtycz DFI, Field A, Tabatabai L, Michaels C, Young Y, Schmidt CM, . Post brushing and fine needle aspiration biopsy follow up and treatment options for patients with pancreatobiliary lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Guidelines. CytoJournal. 2014;11(Suppl S1):5.
[Google Scholar]
Chadwick BE, Layfield LJ, Witt BL, Schmidt RL, Cox RN, Adler DG, . Significance of atypia in pancreatic and bile duct brushings: Follow-up analysis of the categories atypical and suspicious for malignancy. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:285-91.
[Google Scholar]
Layfield LJ, Dodd L, Factor R, Schmidt RL, . Malignancy risk associated with diagnostic categories defined by the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary guidelines. 2013. Cancer Cytopathol. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21386 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncy.21386/pdf
[Google Scholar]
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Daglilar ES, Brugge WR, Mino-Kenudson M, . Cytological criteria of high-grade epithelial atypia in the cyst fluid of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:40-7.
[Google Scholar]
Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Coppola D, Lloyd RV, Suster S, . The pathologic classification of neuroendocrine tumors: A review of nomenclature, grading, and staging systems. Pancreas. 2010;39:707-12.
[Google Scholar]
Klimstra DS, . Pathology reporting of neuroendocrine tumors: Essential elements for accurate diagnosis, classification, and staging. Semin Oncol. 2013;40:23-36.
[Google Scholar]
Frisch NK, Nathan R, Ahmed YK, Shidham VB, . Authors attain comparable or slightly higher rates of citation publishing in an open access journal (CytoJournal) compared to traditional cytopathology journals-A five year (2007-2011) experience. 2014. Cyto Journal. 11:10. Available from: http://www.cytojournal.com/text.asp?2014/11/1/10/131739
[Google Scholar]
Open Access Explained! Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rVH1KGBCY
[Google Scholar]
Adler D, Max Schmidt C, Al-Haddad M, Barthel JS, Ljung BM, Merchant NB, . Clinical evaluation, imaging studies, indications for cytologic study, and preprocedural requirements for duct brushing studies and pancreatic FNA: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology recommendations for pancreatic and biliary cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:325-32.
[Google Scholar]
Brugge W, Dewitt J, Klapman JB, Ashfaq R, Shidham V, Chhieng D, . Techniques for cytologic sampling of pancreatic and bile duct lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:333-7.
[Google Scholar]
Pitman MB, Centeno BA, Ali SZ, Genevay M, Stelow E, Mino-Kenudson M, . Standardized terminology and nomenclature for pancreatobiliary cytology: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:338-50.
[Google Scholar]
Layfield LJ, Ehya H, Filie AC, Hruban RH, Jhala N, Joseph L, . Utilization of ancillary studies in the cytologic diagnosis of biliary and pancreatic lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines for pancreatobiliary cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:351-62.
[Google Scholar]
Kurtycz D, Tabatabai ZL, Michaels C, Young N, Schmidt CM, Farrell J, . Postbrushing and fine-needle aspiration biopsy follow-up and treatment options for patients with pancreatobiliary lesions: The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology guidelines. Diagn Cytopathol. 2014;42:363-71.
[Google Scholar]
e-CytoJournal 2014 Supplement- 1: Pancreaticobiliary tract cytology- PSC Guidelines. Available at http://www.cytojournal.com/browse.asp?sabs=n
[Google Scholar]