100% Rapid Rescreening for Quality Assurance in a Quality Control Program in a Public Health Cytologic Laboratory

Ferraz, Maria da Gloria Mattosinho de Castro; Agnol, Miria Dall’; Loreto, Celso di; Pirani, Wiliam M.; Utagawa, Maria Lúcia; Pereira, Sônia Maria Miranda; Sakai, Yuriko Ito; Feres, Camilo Lelis; Shih, Lai Wun Song; Yamamoto, Luzia Setuko Umeda; Rodrigues, Rosemeire O. L.; Shirata, Neuza Kasumi; Filho, Adhemar Longatto

doi:10.1159/000326252

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 Another methodologic approach for QC intended to diminish the impact of high false negative rates is rapid prescreening or rescreening. Both methods are believed to be superior to 10% R. [15][16][17][18][19] Our results have supported these previous reports showing that 100% RR identifies more lesions than 10% R, in both LBC and Pap smears. LBC presents many advantages compared to conventional cytology, such as time required for screening, the facilities required for LBC thin layer presentation, a reader-friendly procedure and reduced distraction factors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

Utagawa

Shirata²,

Ferraz³

et al. 2008

Acta Cytologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

Utagawa

Shirata²,

Ferraz³

et al. 2008

Acta Cytologica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since then, various studies have confirmed the better performance of this technique in detecting false-negatives, in comparison to R-10% and clinical risk criteria [3,7,12,13,14,15]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, if it is not performed in accordance with the quality control standards, the rate of false-negative results is high [1,2,3,4]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…The most common IQC technique is the 10% review of negative smears in routine smears, where the review is based on clinical criteria. These methods have been recommended in both the USA and Brazil [8] and have been proven to be ineffective in evaluating routine screening performance [15,16] . The 10% random review of negative smears is the most commonly used method, though it does not reduce the high rates of FNR.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of 100% Rapid Review as an Effective Tool for Internal Quality Control in Cytopathological Services

Filho

Freitas²,

Pessoa³

et al. 2017

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 100% rapid review (100%-RR) as an effective tool for internal quality control (IQC) in gynecological cytopathology services. Study Design: A total of 8,677 swabs were analyzed; the negative results were submitted to 100%-RR. Divergent cases were discussed in a consensus meeting to reach a conclusion on the final diagnosis. The data were entered into SAS statistical software, and the agreement of the 100%-RR results with the final diagnosis was tested with the weighted kappa statistic. Results: Of the 8,155 smears characterized as negative, 255 (3.13%) were abnormal smears, and 552 (6.77%) unsatisfactory smears were deemed negative. Regarding the results on the 8,155 smears subjected to 100%-RR when compared with the final diagnosis, there was agreement in 7,063 (86.60%) of them, and there were 1,092 (13.40%) discordant results (65.6%, unsatisfactory; 5.47%, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US]). The κ index had an agreement of 0.867, with κ = 0.734 (p < 0.0001). Compared with the final diagnosis, the sensitivity of 100%-RR was 99.91% and its specificity was 99.4% for severe abnormalities. The sensitivity for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions was 88.2%, with a specificity of 100.00%. For abnormalities considered borderline, such as ASC-US, the sensitivity was 94.50% and the specificity was 99.5%. Conclusion: The 100%-RR was considered efficient when used as an IQC method.

show abstract

100% Rapid Rescreening for Quality Assurance in a Quality Control Program in a Public Health Cytologic Laboratory

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

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

Assessment of 100% Rapid Review as an Effective Tool for Internal Quality Control in Cytopathological Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About