Whole, Turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: Is there any difference in performance?

Abstract

We compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of false-negatives in cervical cytology. We tested RR performance with cytologists trained and among those without training. We revised 1,000 consecutive slides from women participating in an ongoing international screening trial. Two teams of experienced cytologists performed the RR techniques: one trained in RR procedures and the other not trained. The sensitivities in the trained group were Whole 46.6%, Turret 47.4% and Step 50.9%; and in the non-trained group were 38.6, 31.6 and 47.4%, respectively. The kappa coefficient showed a weak agreement between the two groups of cytologists and between the three RR techniques. The RR techniques are more valuable if used by trained cytologists. In the trained group, we did not observe significant differences between the RR techniques used, whereas in the non-trained group, the Step technique had the best sensitivity.

Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

“…6 The reading time for 100% RR was standardized at 60 seconds, for both conventional cytology and LBC prepa- Our results confirm the qualities of 100% RR as a useful option for internal quality control of cervical cytology diagnoses and to avoid false negative results.…”

Impact of Implementing 100% Rapid Review as a Quality Control Tool in Cervical Cytology

“…Experience over time is a factor that improves the accuracy of professionals using the 100% RR method, thereby increasing the rate of lesion detection. Montemor et al [14] tested the performance of 100% RR with trained and untrained cytologists, comparing the Whole, Turret, and Step techniques of 100% RR, and reported greater sensitivity with the group of trained cytologists. The identification of false-negative results is of the utmost importance because it contributes to taking the appropriate clinical steps, identifying women with possible precursor lesions, and allowing an appropriate treatment.…”

Performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytopathology

“…Initially, all routine Pap smears were submitted for rapid prescreening and scrutinised rapidly using the 10× objective of an optical microscope for an average time of 60‐90 seconds for the entire smear. The whole or turret scrutiny technique was used . Rapid prescreening results were classified as suspect, negative or unsatisfactory.…”

“…Soon after routine screening, all smears classified as negative were subjected to 100% rapid review and analysed using the 10× objective of an optical microscope for an average time of 60‐90 seconds for the entire smear. As with rapid prescreening, the whole or turret rapid scrutiny technique was also used . The 100% rapid review results were classified as suspect, negative or unsatisfactory.…”