The MSRSGC appears to be a useful tool to guide clinical management and provide an indication of possible risk of malignancy. We favour implementing use of these categories in our reporting practice with a future re-evaluation to assess maintenance of service quality as well as the clinical utility of this reporting system.

Results: 120 EUS-FNA pancreas specimens from 111 patients were received, of which 112 (93.3%) specimens had follow-up data. There were 79 and 41 EUS-FNA pancreas specimens from solid and cystic lesions, respectively. Based on the cytology diagnosis the specimens were classified as Panc 1 (7.5%), Panc 2 (33.3%), Panc 3 (2.5%), Panc 4B (2.5%), Panc 4O (15.0%), Panc 5 (3.3%) and Panc 6 (35.9%). The performance indicators for diagnosis of malignancy or neoplasia with malignant potential, included sensitivity (95.4%), specificity (100%), positive predictive value (100%), negative predictive value (92.3%), false positive rate (0%) and false negative rate (4.6%). Conclusions:The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology pancreaticobiliary terminology classification scheme is a logical system that can easily be introduced in a diagnostic cytopathology service. This classification scheme acts as an aid to diagnostic reporting, clear communication of significant results including risk of neoplasia/malignancy to clinicians, clinical audit and comparison of results with other centres.

Postmenopausal bleeding triggers urgent investigation by sequential invasive tests that are avoidable for the 90–95% of women who do not have endometrial cancer. A simple, non-invasive tool that accurately identifies cancer and safely reassures healthy women could transform patient care. Here we report, in a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of 103 women with known cancer and 113 with unexplained postmenopausal bleeding, that urine and vaginal cytology has a combined sensitivity of 91.7% (95% CI 85.0%, 96.1%) and specificity of 88.8% (81.2%, 94.1%) for gynecological cancer detection. Cytology identifies 91 endometrial, two fallopian tube and one cervical cancer from 103 known cancer cases. In women with unexplained postmenopausal bleeding, cytology identifies all four endometrial cancers and three others (cervical, ovarian and bladder), for a 12/107 (11.2%) false positive rate. We show proof-of-principle that endometrial cancer can be detected in urine and vaginal fluid. Prospective validation of these findings will support incorporation of this non-invasive test into clinical practice.

ObjectiveTo compare unsatisfactory rates between the two major liquid-based cytology (LBC) platforms, namely ThinPrep (Hologic) and SurePath (Becton Dickinson).DesignThe authors performed both a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were English language, data presented on unsatisfactory rates for either ThinPrep or SurePath, utilising actual patient samples (ie, not laboratory manipulated samples) and no manipulation using acetic acid to increase the satisfactory rate. The authors searched PubMed for articles using the keywords ‘SurePath’ or ‘ThinPrep’ and ‘unsatisfactory’. References of retrieved studies were searched for additional articles. Key researchers in the field were also contacted.Participants and interventionsEligible studies were reviewed for rates of unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears processed on either the ThinPrep or SurePath platforms (compared with a general linear model) or data on unsatisfactory rates for both platforms for the same laboratory and the same patient population (compared with a meta-analysis using a random effects model and pooled RR).Primary Outcome MeasureUnsatisfactory rate of cervical cytology smears.ResultsA total of 1 120 418 cervical cytology smears were reported in 14 different studies using the SurePath platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 0.3%. 28 studies reported on 1 148 755 smears prepared using the ThinPrep platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 1.3%. The general linear model did not show a difference between LBC platforms when other variables were controlled for; however, the power to detect a difference (0.087) was very low. The meta-analysis performed on four studies where both ThinPrep and SurePath results were reported from the same laboratory showed fewer unsatisfactory tests from the SurePath platform (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77, p=0.004).ConclusionsMultiple factors affect LBC unsatisfactory rates. In a meta-analysis, cervical cytology samples prepared on the SurePath platform show significantly fewer unsatisfactory smears than those prepared on the ThinPrep platform.