Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

Utagawa, Maria Lúcia; Shirata, Neuza Kasumi; Ferraz, Maria da Gloria Mattosinho de Castro; Loreto, Celso di; Agnol, Miria Dall’; Longatto‐Filho, Adhemar

doi:10.1159/000325549

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

“…Since then, many studies have shown the advantage of this method over the traditional 10% random review method for the identification of cases not identified in routine screening. 3,15,19 Nevertheless, one of the criticisms of the technique is that it permits only partial evaluation of the rapid reviewer's performance because only smears defined as negative in routine screening are revised; therefore, it is impossible for 100% rapid review to detect any abnormal cases that were not identified at routine screening. 20,21 Rapid prescreening permits the sensitivity not only of routine screening but also of rapid prescreening itself to be calculated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

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

“…Until 2004, the Rômulo Rocha Center used the 10% R and clinical risk criteria methods of internal quality control [11]. At the beginning of 2004, the 100% RR method was implemented.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the impact of implementing 100% rapid review (100% RR) as a quality control tool in cervical smear cytology. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted in which cytology findings, false-negative results, and quality indicators were evaluated. The variables were analyzed in 2004, the year in which 100% RR was implemented, and again in 2013, i.e., 10 years on. Results: Detection of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) increased from 0.90% in 2004 to 2.47% in 2013 by routine screening. Detection of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) increased from 13.33% in 2004 to 36.27% in 2013 by 100% RR. Detection of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) increased from 0.64% in 2004 to 4.29% in 2013 by routine screening, and increased from 0% in 2004 to 19.61% in 2013 by 100% RR. There was a significant increase (p = 0.00001) in the identification of false-negative results of ASC-US, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, ASC-H, HSIL, and atypical glandular cells. All quality indicators had increased in 2013 when compared to 2004 results. Conclusions: Ten years after the implementation of the 100% RR method, improvements were found in the detection of atypia and precursor lesions and in quality indicators.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that LBC is superior to conventional Pap smears in diagnosing glandular lesions because of enhanced cytologic details and significant improvement of the adequacy of samples by a reduction of artifacts and biases, which typically limit cytologic interpretation . In a retrospective study of 3 QA methods (morphology‐guided criteria, 100% RR, and 10% full rescreening) for all N smears, including both LBC and conventional Pap smears, RR detected 4 cases of AGC (0.1%) among 3067 smears, all of which were diagnosed with LBC …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pap smears with glandular cell abnormalities: Are they detected by rapid prescreening?

Kanber

Charbonneau

Auger

2015

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Rapid prescreening (RPS) is one of the quality assurance (QA) methods used in gynecologic cytology.The efficacy of RPS has been previously studied but mostly with respect to squamous lesions; in fact, there has been no study so far specifically looking at the sensitivity of RPS for detecting glandular cell abnormalities. METHODS: A total of 80,565 Papanicolaou (Pap) smears underwent RPS during a 25-month period. A sample was designated as "review for abnormality" (R) if any abnormal cells (at the threshold of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/atypical glandular cells [AGC]) were thought to be present or was designated as negative (N) if none were detected. Each sample then underwent full screening (FS) and was designated as either R or N and also given a cytologic interpretation. RESULTS:The final cytologic interpretation was a glandular cell abnormality ( AGC) in 107 samples (0.13%); 39 of these (36.4%) were flagged as R on RPS. Twenty-four patients (33.8%) out of 71 who had histologic follow-up were found to harbor a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma; 13 of those 24 Pap smears (54.2%) had been flagged as R on RPS. Notably, 11 AGC cases were picked up by RPS only and not by FS and represented false-negative cases; 2 of these showed endometrial adenocarcinoma on histologic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Pap smears with glandular cell abnormalities are often flagged as abnormal by RPS, and this results in a sensitivity of 36.4% (at the AGC threshold).Most importantly, some cases of AGC are detected on Pap smears by RPS only, and this demonstrates that RPS is a valuable QA method. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2015;123:739-44.

show abstract

Performance of 3 Methods for Quality Control for Gynecologic Cytology Diagnoses

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears

Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears

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

Pap smears with glandular cell abnormalities: Are they detected by rapid prescreening?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About