Rapid cervicovaginal smear screening: method of quality control and assessing individual cytotechnologist performance

Pajtler, Marija; Audy-Jurković, Silvana; Škopljanac-Mačina, Lada; Antulov, Jaesnka; Barišić, Ana; Miličić-Juhas, Valerija

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00367.x

Cited by 15 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…That the examiner was aware there were not only normal smears but also abnormal ones in that batch of smears may explain these findings, and this is precisely the benefit of rapid prescreening. 17,28,[39][40][41] It is already known that the principal difference between rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review is that rapidly screening only those smears considered normal or unsatisfactory at routine screening means evaluating a group of smears in which the incidence of abnormality is low. This is a tedious task that may reduce concentration and result in screening errors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,7,24,29,33 Rates of false-negative results of 1.80% and 1.14% identified by rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review, respectively, were consistent with those reported from other studies, in which the rate of false-negative results ranged from 0.0% to 9.8% with rapid prescreening and from 1.07% to 33.1% with 100% rapid review. 9,15,20,28,[34][35][36][37][38] What, then, would explain that one method is more sensitive than the other despite both methods using the same rapid-screening technique? Why was sensitivity higher in some studies evaluating the 100% rapid review method compared with others that evaluated the same technique?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sensitivity of rapid prescreening was approximately 60% higher than that of 100% rapid review in detecting abnormalities as severe as ASC-US or worse, and although no other studies have yet been carried out to compare these methods, these findings are in agreement with other studies that have evaluated rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review separately. 3,4,9,19,20,[28][29][30][31][32] Significant improvement in sensitivity was found in routine screening following implementation of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as methods of internal quality control. Sensitivity increased 24% and 15% for rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review, respectively, in detecting abnormalities as severe as ASC-US or worse.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears

Tavares

Sousa

Manrique

et al. 2011

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears

Tavares

Sousa

Manrique

et al. 2011

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most used techniques are the review of 10% (R-10%) of negative smears at routine screening (RS) and cases with clinical risk criteria (CRC). These methods have been recommended in both the USA and Brazil [5,6] but they have proved ineffective for evaluating the performance of RS [3,7,8,9,10]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal Quality Control for Cervical Cytopathology: Comparison of Potential False-Negatives Detected at Rapid Prescreening and at 100% Rapid Review

Tavares¹,

Souza²,

Manrique³

et al. 2014

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the performance of rapid prescreening (RPS) and 100% rapid review (RR-100%) as internal quality control (IQC) methods assessed by outcome at colposcopy, histopathology and repeat cytopathology for cases with false-negative results on cervical cytopathology at routine screening (RS). Study Design: Out of 12,208 cytology smears analyzed, 900 were abnormal. Of these, 656 were identified at RS, and 244 were false-negative, with 90.2% identified at RPS and 57.4% at RR-100%. Of the 900 abnormal cases, 436 were submitted for additional testing. Results: Of the 244 women with cytopathological abnormalities identified only by the IQC methods, 114 had supplementary examinations: 35 were submitted for colposcopy, 22 for biopsy and 99 for repeat cytopathology. The sensitivity of RPS for the detection of abnormalities identified on colposcopy, histopathology and repeat cytopathology was 87.5% (95% CI 67.6-97.3), 82.4% (95% CI 56.6-96.2) and 95.7% (95% CI 85.2-99.5), respectively. The sensitivity of RR-100% was 54.2% (95% CI 32.8-74.4), 52.9% (95% CI 27.8-77.0) and 47.8% (95% CI 32.9-63.1), respectively. RPS was more sensitive than RR-100% when compared to the findings on colposcopy (p = 0.011) and repeat cytopathology (p = 0.000). When compared to colposcopy, histopathology and repeat cytopathology, the sensitivity of RS was 83.2% (95% CI 76.1-88.9), 85.7% (95% CI 78.1-91.5) and 73.3% (95% CI 66.0-79.7), respectively. Conclusion: RPS performed better than RR-100% when compared to the results of colposcopy and repeat cytopathology.

show abstract

“…13 A study investigating the effectiveness of rapid review as a quality control measure for negative slides also implicated abnormal HCCG in cases of missed dyskaryosis. 14 The current NHSCSP audit of invasive cervical cancers has specified microbiopsies as a potential cause of missed dyskaryosis and has listed several benign forms of HCCG as causes of false-positive reports. 15 Such groups are also listed as problems in interpretation of dyskaryosis.…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Hyperchromatic crowded cell groups in gynaecological liquid-based cytology samples

Croll

Rana

Walton

2010

British Journal of Biomedical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cervical cytology screening is a complex and demanding procedure. Correct diagnosis depends on accurate interpretation of cells, including dense clusters known as hyperchromatic crowded cell groups (HCCG). These groups are frequently encountered in liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples and can be difficult to identify as a specific cell type. Although usually benign and thus often overlooked, they may occasionally represent severely abnormal cells. Thus, their correct interpretation is vital for accurate reporting. Such groups are responsible for false-positive and false-negative reporting and have been implicated in cases of missed dyskaryosis and cervical cancer. Normal and abnormal cells of both squamous and glandular origin, together with non-epithelial elements, may present as HCCG and this review uses the authors' experience with SurePath to describe the morphological criteria used to evaluate them when screening. Despite the introduction of semi-automated screening systems for LBC, there is currently no complete replacement for human interpretation of cell morphology in cytology screening.

show abstract

Rapid cervicovaginal smear screening: method of quality control and assessing individual cytotechnologist performance

Abstract: RS could be introduced as an efficient method of quality control to improve the sensitivity of cytological screening as well as for quality control of cytotechnologist performance.

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears

Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears

Internal Quality Control for Cervical Cytopathology: Comparison of Potential False-Negatives Detected at Rapid Prescreening and at 100% Rapid Review

Hyperchromatic crowded cell groups in gynaecological liquid-based cytology samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About