Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears
- 22 September 2011
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Cancer Cytopathology
- Vol. 119 (6), 367-376
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.20190
Abstract
Background: High rates of false‐negative results constitute a routine problem in cytology laboratories. Of currently available internal quality control methods, 10% random review is the least effective in detecting false‐negatives in routine screening. There is evidence that 100% rapid review and rapid prescreening perform well for this purpose. This study compared the performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytology exams. Methods: Over 27 months, 12,208 cervical cytology smears were submitted to rapid prescreening and routine screening. The 100% rapid review method was performed on all smears classified as negative or unsatisfactory at routine screening. Conflicting results obtained with either method were reviewed in detail to define final diagnosis, which was considered the gold standard for evaluating the performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review. Results: Compared with final diagnosis, the sensitivity of routine screening and rapid prescreening was 72.9% and 75.6%, respectively. Considering only smears classified as negative or unsatisfactory at routine screening, the sensitivity of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review was 90.2% and 57,0%, respectively. Of 244 cases (2.0%) of false‐negative results at routine screening, rapid prescreening identified 220 cases (1.80%), whereas 100% rapid review identified 140 (1.15%). Rapid prescreening detected all cases of HSIL identified as false‐negatives. Conclusions: Rapid prescreening is more effective than 100% rapid review for the detection of false‐negatives at routine screening, thus providing subsidies for the performance of cervical cytology, the principal function of which is to detect precursor lesions of cervical cancer. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society.Keywords
This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Rapid Pre-Screening Is More Sensitive in Liquid-Based Cytology than in Conventional SmearsActa Cytologica, 2010
- Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimensCytopathology, 2010
- ASC/SIL Ratio for CytotechnologistsAmerican Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2009
- Assuring the quality of quality assuranceCancer, 2008
- Quality assessment in the age of machine-aided cervical cytology screeningCancer, 2004
- Rapid review in cervical cytology: a retrospective review of cases detected on rapid review within a DGH cytology department and subsequent outcomeCytopathology, 2004
- Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smearsCancer, 2002
- Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice?Cytopathology, 2002
- Rapid reviewCytopathology, 1998
- Rapid review (partial rescreening) of cervical cytology. Four years experience and quality assurance implications.Journal of Clinical Pathology, 1996