The Implementation of Nongynecologic Reporting Systems in Cytopathology Laboratories Is Highly Variable Analysis of Data From a 2020 Supplemental Survey of Participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Nongynecologic Cytology

• Context.—In recent years, several reporting systems have been developed by national and international cytopathology organizations to standardize the evaluation of specific cytopathology specimen types. Objective.—To assess the current implementation rates, implementation methods, and barriers to implementation of commonly used nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories. Design.—Data were analyzed from a survey developed by the College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee and distributed to participants in the College of American Pathologists Nongynecologic Cytopathology Education Program mailing. Results.—Nongynecologic reporting systems with the highest rate of adoption were the Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology, 2nd edition (74.1%; 552 of 745); the Paris System for Reporting Urinary Cytology (53.9%; 397 of 736); and the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (29.1%; 200 of 688). The most common reason given for not adopting a reporting system was satisfaction with a laboratory’s current system. Implementation varied among laboratories with regard to which stakeholders were involved in deciding to implement a system and the amount of education provided during the implementation process. Conclusions.—The implementation of nongynecologic reporting systems in cytopathology laboratories was highly variable.