|
1
|
Tobias AHG, Vitalino AC, Rezende MT, Oliveira RRR, Coura-Vital W, Amaral RG, Carneiro CM. Performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytopathology. Cytopathology 2018; 29:428-435. [PMID: 29904955 DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/14/2018] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND An objective of quality control for cervical cytopathology is reducing high rates of false-negative results of laboratory tests. Therefore, methods to review smears such as rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review, which have shown better performance detecting false-negative results, have been widely used. The performance of rapid prescreening and the performance of 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytology examinations were evaluated. METHODS For 24 months, 9318 conventional cervical cytology smears underwent rapid prescreening and routine screening. The 100% rapid review method was performed for 8244 smears classified as negative during routine screening. Any discordant results underwent detailed review to define the final diagnosis. This was considered the gold standard for evaluating the performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review. RESULTS Routine screening showed increases of 13.3% and 11.5% in the detection of abnormal smears with rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review, respectively. The relative percentage variation showed a 38.1% increase in the diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with routine screening and rapid prescreening and a 12.5% increase in the diagnosis of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion with both rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review. Sensitivity rates of rapid prescreening and routine screening were 48.2% and 83.2%, respectively. Sensitivity rates of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review were 65.7% and 57.8%, respectively, for detecting false-negative results. CONCLUSIONS Inclusion of rapid prescreening and/or 100% rapid review improved the diagnostic sensitivity of the cervical cytology examination and reduced false-negative results of routine screening and can provide good quality control.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A H G Tobias
- Post-Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.,Clinical Cytology Section, Laboratory of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
| | - A C Vitalino
- Post-Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
| | - M T Rezende
- Post-Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.,Clinical Cytology Section, Laboratory of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
| | - R R R Oliveira
- Clinical Cytology Section, Laboratory of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
| | - W Coura-Vital
- Department of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
| | - R G Amaral
- School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil
| | - C M Carneiro
- Post-Graduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.,Clinical Cytology Section, Laboratory of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.,Department of Clinical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Manrique EJC, Souza NLA, Tavares SBN, Albuquerque ZBP, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. 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. Cytopathology 2010; 22:195-201. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00776.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|