Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?

Abstract

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.

One-Year Experience of Implementation of 100% Cervical Cytology Rapid Review

“…Compared with Magalhães et al [1] and Queiroz-Filho et al [2], our results after implementation of 100% rapid review showed significant increases in atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; atypical squamous cells cannot exclude the categories of high-grade and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions.…”

“…We read two recent articles entitled “Impact of Implementing 100% Rapid Review as a Quality Control Tool in Cervical Cytology” [1] and “Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?” [2]. Here, we would like to compare these data with our 1-year experience.…”