Rapid pre‐screening of Pap smears in quality control: an Italian experience

Placidi, A.; Manca, G.; Mania, E; Arbyn, M.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2303.2004.00141.x

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…RPS and RR-100% identified 63.6 and 40.8% of cases of CIN1 and 31.8 and 18.1% of cases of CIN2/+, respectively. Though these data are in agreement with the findings of other studies [26,27], only 48% of cases diagnosed as abnormal on previous cytopathology were submitted for supplementary testing and colposcopy with guided biopsy was only performed in 33.6% of cases of ASC-H, HSIL and AGC.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The first calculated the sensitivity of RPS and RS and concluded that the performance of both methods was similar in this respect. In the second, histopathology results were abnormal in 21% of cases of CIN1/+ and in 12% of cases of CIN2/+ [26,27]. The performance of RR-100% in the studies that took histopathology results into consideration ranged from 25 to 76.9% for CIN1/+ and 13.1 to 31.6% for CIN2/+ [14,28,29,30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…On rapid rescreening of all negative findings, the proportion of additional positive findings expressed as a percentage of all rescreened smears ranges from 0.08% to 2.9%, and the proportion of additional positive findings expressed as percentage of all positive smears ranges from 1.07% to 33.1% 7,12,14,15,29–31 . On rapid pre‐screening, the proportion of additional positive findings expressed as percentage of all positive findings is 0.0–9.8% 16,18 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RS has high sensitivity, especially for high‐grade lesions 3,8,9,16,18,19 . Seven studies of RS with analysis time ranging from 30 to 120 seconds 16,18 report a sensitivity for all abnormalities of 35.8–83.1%, specificity of 86.5–98.3%, positive predictive value of 3.0–74.0% and negative predictive value of 93.4–99.9%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vários autores (2, 3, 5, 10 12, 19, 22, 31) defendem a revisão de todos os exames colpocitológicos após o escrutínio, para o controle interno da qualidade dos diagnósticos emitidos. Já o exame rápido pré-escrutínio, mas sem campo marcado, foi utilizado por um autor (29) e esse relata bom resultado no controle da qualidade do diagnóstico, salientando ainda, que é possível que se faça a identificação de uma lesão intra-epitelial escamosa de alto grau num exame de 60 segundos. Por outro lado, outro autor (11) , após testar esse método de exame pré-escrutínio rápido, questiona a sua validade em relação ao controle de diagnóstico, entretanto reforça que são necessárias novas avaliações do método em outros serviços de citopatologia, para uma conclusão definitiva.…”

Section: Tabelaunclassified