What is atypia? Use, misuse and overuse of the term atypia in diagnostic cytopathology

The term “atypical” was introduced by the founder of modern cytodiagnosis, Dr. George N. Papanicolaou, to convey a very low suspicion of (pre)malignancy. Despite controversies concerning its ambiguous and imprecise definition and its uncertain optimal use, the term “atypia” has continued to be used in cytopathology, and has recently been increasingly used in standardized nongynecologic cytopathology diagnostic reporting terminologies. Its increasing use suggests that “atypia” continues to be a useful category to fill the gap between what we can recognize as entirely normal (including reactive changes) and what we can recognize as clearly abnormal (premalignant or malignant). However, this diagnosis should be used parsimoniously, since the potential overuse of “atypia” diagnoses can lead to the erosion of clinicians' confidence in cytopathology, their misunderstanding of the cytopathology report, and to an increase the clinicians' diagnostic uncertainty, with negative consequences on patients' satisfaction and wellbeing, and on health care costs. A clinically meaningful, standardized cytodiagnostic category of “atypia” requires a narrow definition, quantitative criteria, agreed-upon reference images, a clear clinical meaning (likelihood of underlying malignancy or premalignancy) and, ideally, well-defined management options. The successful implementation of such a standardized “atypia” diagnostic category requires continuous education of cytology professionals and quality assurance efforts to monitor its use. The interobserver variability and potential excessive use of the diagnosis of “atypia” may be reduced by considering and addressing the major factors involved in its variable use, namely the quality of the sample, the definition of “atypia”, the education/training of the cytologist/pathologist, and cytologist/pathologist-related “supracytologic” factors.