González-Losa MR, Amaro-Camacho A, Domínguez-Reyes M, Castro-Sansores C

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 102-106
PDF size: 46.80 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To evaluate the quality of pap smear sampling in the cervical cancer screening program (CCSP) at the Unidad Medico Familiar (UMF) No. 57 of the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
Study Design. 530 reports of pap smears were analyzed in a transversal, retrospective and descriptive study. Quality was measured using an indicator calculated in the following way: number of pap smears with endocervical or metaplastic cells divided by the total number of pap smears studied x 100. The standard of quality was 60% or more of the samples with endocervical cells.
Results. The quality index was 62.67%. The presence of endocervical or metaplastic cells were not confirmed in 22.5% of the reports and these were neither marked as inadequate samples nor was it considered necessary repeat them.
Conclusions. The results from this study indicate that the training courses given to the personnel who takes the samples have been successful. The quality of the sampling procedure at UMF 57 is satisfactory.

REFERENCES

1. 1.- Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisan P. Estimating the World cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 2001; 94: 153-6.

2. 2.- Arrossi S, Sankaranarayanan R, Parkin DM. Incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Latin America. Salud Pub de México 2003; 45; s306-14.

3. 3.- Escandon-Romero C, Benitez-Martinez MG, Navarrete-Espinoza J, Vazquez-Martinez JL, Martinez-Montañez OG, Escobedo de la Peña J. Epidemiology of cervical cancer at the Mexican Institute of Social Security. Salud Pública Mex 1992; 34:607-14.

4. 4.- Jiménez-Pérez M, Thomas DB. Has the use of pap smear reduced the risk of invasive cervical Cancer in Guadalajara, Mexico? Int J Cancer 1999; 82:804-9.

5. 5- Secretaria de Salud. Estadísticas de mortalidad en México:muertes registradas en el año 2003. Salud Pública Mex 2005; 47:171:87.

6. 6.- Kiviat N. Natural history of cervical neoplasia:overview and update. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1099-104.

7. 7.-Dzul-Rosado KR, Puerto-Solís M, González-Losa MR. Cáncer cervicouterino: actualización de métodos para su detección. Rev Biomed 2004; 15:233-41.

8. 8.-Lazcano-Ponce EC, Moss S, Alonso de Ruiz A, Salmerón-Castro J, Hernández-Avila M. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: Why is it ineffective? The case of Mexico. Arch Med Res 1999;30:240-50.

9. 9.-Lazcano- Ponce E, Rascón-Pacheco R, Lozano-Ascencio R, Velasco-Mondragón HE. Mortality from carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Mexico: Impact of screening 1980-1990. Act Cytol 1996; 40: 506-12.

10. 10.- Palacio-Mejía LS, Rangel-Gómez G, Hernández-Avila M, Lazcano-Ponce E. Cervical cancer, a disease of poverty: Mortality differences bvetween urban and rural areas in Mexico. Salud Pública Mex 2003; 45;s315-25.

11. 11.- Lazcano-Ponce E, Alonso P, Ruiz-Moreno JA, Hernandez-Avila M. Recommendations for cervical cancer screening programs in developing countries. The need for equity and thecnological development. Salud Pública Mex 2003; 45; s449-62.

12. 12.- Lazcano E, Alonso P, López L, Hernández A M. Quality control study on negative gynaecological cytology in Mexico. Diag Cytophatol 1994; 10:10-14.

13. 13- Lazcano-Ponce EC, Alonso-de Ruiz P, Martínez-Arias C, Murguía- Riechers L. Concordancia diagnostica en citología ginecológica. Rev Invest Clin 1997; 49:111-6.

14. - Mintzer M, Curtis P, Resnic JC, Morrell D. The effect of quality Papanicolaou smears on the detection of cytologic abnormalities. Cancer 1999; 87:113-7.

15. 15.- Salinas-Martínez AM, Villareal-Ríos E, Garza-Elizondo ME, Fraire-Gloria JM, López-Franco JJ, Barboza-Quintana O. Calidad del programa de detección oportuna de cáncer cervicouterino en el estado de Nuevo León. Salud Pública Mex 1997;39:188-94.

16. - Bergeron C. The 2001 Bethesda System. Salud Pública Mex 2003; 45; s340-4.