Quality assurance (QA) principles are well established in veterinary laboratory medicine. However, cytopathology reporting has not received equivalent systematic scrutiny. Reports vary in structure, terminology, and expressions of diagnostic confidence. These inconsistencies unintentionally lead to miscommunication among pathologists and between pathologists and clinicians, affecting report comprehension and subsequent case management. This commentary explores how the application of established QA principles to veterinary cytopathology reporting can strengthen its clinical utility. A review of existing veterinary and human cytopathology QA literature, combined with insights from published surveys of veterinary clinicians and clinical pathologists, highlight areas where core QA principles may enhance report quality and reproducibility, as well as advance clinical research. Key opportunities include optimizing report organization to improve readability, adopting more consistent diagnostic terminology, and incorporating statements about sample adequacy with suggestions for improvement when appropriate. Explicitly stating and explaining the level of interpretive confidence, while limiting and clearly defining confidence-modifying terms, can help reduce ambiguity and thus support clinical decision-making. Because cytopathology reports directly inform diagnosis as well as testing and therapeutic decisions, improving their clarity and consistency is both a clinical and an ethical priority. Applying QA principles to cytopathology reporting would bring this discipline into closer alignment with established practices in human medicine and other veterinary laboratory subdisciplines. Development of consensus recommendations will require multidisciplinary collaboration among pathologists and practitioners. An international task force is forming to develop standardized, broadly applicable recommendations that enhance the communication efficacy, transparency, and ultimate value of veterinary cytopathology reporting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cook et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: