Performance Characteristics of Rapid (30-Second) Prescreening: Implications for Calculating the False-Negative Rate and Comparison With Other Quality Assurance Techniques

Renshaw, Andrew A.; Cronin, Janet A.; Minter, Lori J.; Nappi, Dorothy; Whitman, Terry; Jiroutek, Michael R.; Cibas, Edmund S.

doi:10.1093/ajcp/111.4.517

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As in previous studies in the literature, [22][23][24][25]29,31,32 our experience with RPS shows that it is an efficient and practical QC strategy in gynecologic cytology because it provides a measurable parameter with which to monitor the sensitivity of the Pap smears and allows for timely corrections before releasing the results to the clinicians.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…It has since been shown to be an efficient tool for QC in gynecologic cytology. [22][23][24][25][26] It is also reported to be as sensitive as RR in detecting abnormal smears. 33 Because all cases subsequently undergo routine full screening, it is possible to calculate the sensitivity of the prescreening procedure and, taking additional cases picked up on RPS into account, to better estimate the FNR for a laboratory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This issue is addressed through a variation of RR called rapid prescreening (RPS) that involves rapid screening of all Pap smears before their full screening. [23][24][25][26] The aim of the current study was to attempt to improve the sensitivity of Pap smears through a better QC measure. Specifically, we describe our experience with the implementation of RPS as a QC measure in a large cytopathology laboratory in Canada.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rapid prescreening of papanicolaou smears

Djemli

Khetani

Auger

2005

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Population stratification results from unequal, nonrandom genetic contribution of ancestors and should be reflected in the underlying genealogies. In Quebec, the distribution of Mendelian diseases points to local founder effects suggesting stratification of the contemporary French Canadian gene pool. Here we characterize the population structure through the analysis of the genetic contribution of 7,798 immigrant founders identified in the genealogies of 2,221 subjects partitioned in eight regions. In all but one region, about 90% of gene pools were contributed by early French founders. In the eastern region where this contribution was 76%, we observed higher contributions of Acadians, British and American Loyalists. To detect population stratification from genealogical data, we propose an approach based on principal component analysis (PCA) of immigrant founders' genetic contributions. This analysis was compared with a multidimensional scaling of pairwise kinship coefficients. Both methods showed evidence of a distinct identity of the northeastern and eastern regions and stratification of the regional populations correlated with geographical location along the St‐Lawrence River. In addition, we observed a West‐East decreasing gradient of diversity. Analysis of PC‐correlated founders illustrates the differential impact of early versus latter founders consistent with specific regional genetic patterns. These results highlight the importance of considering the geographic origin of samples in the design of genetic epidemiology studies conducted in Quebec. Moreover, our results demonstrate that the study of deep ascending genealogies can accurately reveal population structure. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rapid prescreening of papanicolaou smears

Djemli

Khetani

Auger

2005

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, because all RPS cases subsequently undergo routine full screening, it is possible to calculate the sensitivity of the prescreening procedure and, taking additional cases picked up on RPS into account, to better estimate the false-negative rate for a laboratory. 2,5,10,11 This latter point, of a more accurate calculation of the false-negative rate by the laboratories, that is, the ''corrected'' false-negative rate as promoted by Renshaw,11 is an important one that could allow more meaningful comparison of data between laboratories.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid prescreening in gynecologic cytology

Auger

2011

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whenever I mention that our laboratory uses rapid prescreening (RPS) instead of the usual 10% random review to improve the detection of false-negative cases in gynecologic cytology, the usual response, with few exceptions, is an assortment of skeptical stares and polite smiles. It is indeed difficult to fathom that someone screening rapidly, that is, for less than 2 minutes, thereby covering only a fraction of the surface area of a slide, could uncover abnormalities not detected by another who has screened the same slide completely for 6 minutes or more. As counterintuitive as it seems, RPS works! Perhaps it is a practical application of the dictum ''two heads are better than one,'' which could be restated as ''four eyes are better than two.'' Indeed, 2 observers viewing independently the same object without knowing the other's opinion may focus on different aspects of that object and end up contributing additional or complementary findings. In the context of RPS, additional false-negative cases do get detected. The study by Tavares et al published in the current issue of Cancer Cytopathology adds strong data to the growing body of evidence that RPS is an excellent internal quality assurance method for improving the performance of gynecologic cytology. 1 Although a mandatory quality assurance technique by CLIA 88 in the United States, the 10% random review of negative gynecologic smears is renowned for its inefficiency and lack of statistical power to detect lowlevel achievement in primary screening. [2][3][4][5][6] Full manual rescreening of all negative gynecologic smears is too time consuming to be of practical value. Therefore, rapid screening, defined as the review of gynecologic smears in a shorter period than usual, generally less than 2 minutes, is an attractive alternative. Two types of rapid screening exist: rapid rescreening (RR) and RPS. Rapid rescreening consists of partial rescreening for a limited duration at low magnification (Â10) of slides previously reported as within normal limits or as inadequate. The rapid rescreener (usually a cytotechnologist who was not the initial screener of the smear) puts aside the smears probably containing missed abnormalities. These are then submitted to a full check by another cytotechnologist and/ or pathologist. Rapid rescreening is currently the preferred method for quality control for gynecologic cytology in the United Kingdom. The second type of rapid screening is RPS, which consists of rapidly screening all routine gynecological smears prior to the routine full screening (instead of doing it after the full screening, as in RR).

show abstract

“…This practice also has been used in trials. 2,4,6,11,[13][14][15] The idea of seeding positive cases randomly into the work to be rapid screened has been suggested by several investigators. 9 Renshaw 16 suggested that seeded cases could be used to estimate screening sensitivity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%