Abstract

INTRODUCTION: One of the most frequently cited disadvantages of cervical cancer screening is its high false negative rate. The most widely used quality assurance method is 10% random re-screening. Recent studies have shown that 100% rapid re-screening is an efficient method for reduction of the false negative rate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 100% rapid re-screening with that of 10% random re-screening as an internal quality assurance method. METHODS: 2,750 first screening negative smears were submitted to 100% rapid re-screening by a senior cytotechnologist followed by 10% random re-screening by another senior cytotechnologist. After re-screening, all smears were analyzed by two independent cytopathologists. Whenever results were divergent the smears were analyzed by a third cytopathologist and the panel established a consensus gold standard diagnosis. RESULTS: 98 suspect smears were selected by rapid re-screening, 62 of which were confirmed as abnormal by the gold standard: 45 Ascus, 11 LSIL and six HSIL (sensitivity 73.8%). Of the nine abnormal smears detected by the 10% random re-screening, six were confirmed by the gold standard, three Ascus, two LSIL and one HSIL (sensitivity 50%). The gold standard detected 57 Ascus, ten LSIL and five HSIL cases among the 2,489 smears that were not submitted to 10% re-screening. CONCLUSIONS: 100% rapid re-screening is an efficient alternative for reduction of cervical screening false negative rates. It also allowed to monitor the individual performance of members of the team.

Highlights

  • One of the most frequently cited disadvantages of cervical cancer screening is its high false negative rate

  • Recent studies have shown that 100%

  • rapid re-screening is an efficient method for reduction of the false negative rate

Read more

Summary

Introduction

One of the most frequently cited disadvantages of cervical cancer screening is its high false negative rate. Têm sido avaliados vários métodos, com diferentes que os resultados foram discordantes, os esfregaços focustos e eficiência, para garantia de qualidade do diag- ram analisados por um terceiro citopatologista. Os citotécnicos foram treico citopatológico, todavia de forma restrita, devido ao alto nados durante dois meses para realizarem a revisão rápicusto dos equipamentos e de sua operacionalização Resultados parar, em um laboratório de grande porte, o desempenho dos métodos de revisão rápida de 100% e revisão de 10% dos esfregaços negativos da rotina, para identificar aquele que oferece maior garantia interna de qualidade. Este estudo foi realizado no Laboratório de Citopa- rápida, 45 foram classificados como células escamosas atítologia do Caism/Unicamp, que analisa uma média de 21 picas de significado indeterminado (Ascus), 11 como lemil esfregaços por mês. Esfregaços alterados detectados pela revisão rápida de 100% e pela revisão de 10% Tabela 1 e confirmados pelo padrão-ouro

Revisão rápida com esfregaços negativos
Ascus LSIL HSIL Negativo
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call