Results of a control quality strategy in cervical cytology

Gullo, Caio Eduardo; A, Dami; Barbosa, Amanda Pires; Marques, Aline Maria de Vita; Palmejani, Marianna Angelo; Lima, Luciana; Bonilha, Jane Lopes

doi:10.1590/s1679-45082012000100018

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various methods of internal quality monitoring have been developed with the purpose of reducing errors of scrutiny and analysis of the cytology diagnosis, among them the 100% rapid review (100% RR) of negative smears [8, 10]. The 100% RR consists of quickly scrutinizing all smears considered negative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does 100% Rapid Review Improve Cervical Cancer Screening?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reduction in the number of false‐positive results in the participating laboratories highlights the positive impact of continued education, since false‐positive results lead to unnecessary procedures that burden healthcare services, add to the financial costs of healthcare and may result in psychological problems for the woman …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Guaranteeing the quality of cervical cytopathology depends on a set of measures aimed at detecting, correcting, and minimizing deficiencies in the production process within the laboratory. This process permits the laboratory procedures to be improved and minimizes the occurrence of diagnostic errors, principally false‐negative results, serving as guidance to improve sampling and as an educational tool …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of cervical cytopathology following an intervention by an external quality control laboratory

Ázara

Manrique

Tavares

et al. 2016

Diagnostic Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cervical cytology is the most used strategy for detecting cervical cancer and its precursor lesions; however, its effectiveness is still questioned because many women still develop cancer . This is due, in part, to the high rate of false‐negative results, which can range from 2% to 62% . The reasons for this huge variation in range are errors in collection, screening and diagnostic interpretation …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%