Cytopathology is a widely practiced, low-cost diagnostic modality in India. However, nationwide data on infrastructure, contemporary practices, and use of ancillary techniques remain limited. We conducted a nationwide survey to describe current practice patterns and identify existing gaps. A cross-sectional online questionnaire (Google Form) was shared amongst practicing pathologists in India from June 12, 2025 to July 15, 2025. The data collected included laboratory type, specimen workload, staining, cell-block preparation, ancillary testing, adoption of standardized reporting systems, turnaround time (TAT), and use of digital pathology. Descriptive statistics were generated. Of 235 respondents, 84.7% (199/235) reported having a dedicated cytopathology laboratory; 130 (55.3%) were from teaching hospitals. FNAC remains widely practiced throughout the country: 72.8% of FNACs are performed by pathologists and 37% of centers receive > 2000 FNAC cases annually. Cell blocks were prepared in 72.3% (170/235) of centers; ancillary techniques were available in 37.9% (89/235). Standardized reporting systems were used by 80.9% (190/235) respondents, and 50.2% routinely performed ROSE. Only 10.2% had access to whole-slide imaging and 2.6% reported use of AI tools. A TAT of ≤ 24 h was followed in 46.8% (110/235) centers. Significant differences across center types were observed for reporting patterns, accreditation, ancillary testing, and quality assurance practices (p < 0.05). Cytopathology services in India are widespread but heterogeneous: infrastructure, ancillary testing, and digital adoption vary significantly with center type. Nation-wide efforts to standardize reporting, strengthen training in specimen triage, and expand accreditation and EQAS participation are essential to improve uniformity and quality of services.
Gupta et al. (Mon,) studied this question.