Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens

Manrique, Edna Joana Cláudio; Souza, Nadja Lindany Alves de; Tavares, Suelene B. N.; Albuquerque, Zair Benedita Pinheiro de; Zeferino, Luíz Carlos; Amaral, Rita Goreti

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00776.x

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A survey of 5,235 smears considered negative at the first selection used 100% RR at different times of counting, and detected 88 cases suspected of positivity, 45 of which were independently confirmed after cytological diagnosis [12]. Another study with 2,500 cytological tests considered negative after 100% RR detected 310 suspected cases, with 140 established after histopathological analysis [21], which could be used as an IQC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate 100% rapid review (100% RR) as a useful tool to detect false negative (FN) results. Study Design: A sample of 8,677 swabs was investigated; the unsatisfactory and negative results were referred to 100% RR, concordant results were taken as the final diagnosis, while the discordant results were debated in a consensus meeting to reach a conclusion. The positive results were examined by 2 cytologists. 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: There was a significant increase in unsatisfactory results from 348 to 1,927, and of positive results from 174 to 349. On the other hand, there was a substantial decrease in negative results from 8,155 to 6,401. Assessing the relative risk of FN results in smears that were not referred to quality control (100% RR) revealed the following results: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), 2.93; low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), 2.72; high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/atypical squamous cells – cannot exclude HSIL (HSIL/ASC-H), 2.25. Evaluating by age group, a higher risk for LSIL (4.90) and ASC-US (3.85) was observed in patients aged under 25 years, whereas patients between 25 and 64 years and those over 64 years presented a higher risk for HSIL and ASC-H: 2.46 and 2.75, respectively. Conclusion: 100% RR is an effective screening tool for FN results in countries where molecular tests for DNA-HPV and prophylactic vaccines are not available in cervical cancer screening programs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After this rapid review (RR) all suspect smears are subjected to a detailed review to define a final diagnosis [11]. This method is known to be used as a tool for internal quality control (IQC) in the UK and in other European countries, Australia, and in North America 100% RR is also used in quality assurance in cytopathology [11, 12]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

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

“…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%

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

Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens

Abstract: The method of rapid review of 100% showed no difference in the detection of false-negative results using the time of 1 or 2 minutes. The quality of the sample did not influence the detection of false-negatives.

Cited by 10 publications

References 26 publications

Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?

Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About