Guzmán-González P, Alonso-de Ruiz P, Córdova-Ramírez S, González-Mena LE

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 102-106
PDF size: 113.28 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Only in some Latin American countries the cervical cancer screening programs have been successful, in comparison with the outcome in developed countries. One difference should be due the lack of quality control mechanisms in the cytology laboratories. Objective: The objective of this paper is to evaluate the achievement of two quality control mechanisms and make a comparison between them : the common quality control procedure against the rapid rescreening procedure. Material and methods: This is a retrospective study of concordance of the cytological diagnosis with the histopathologic results in all the positive cases along one year. Results: Both procedures showed similar findings evaluated by diagnostic concordance and kappa index. Conclusions: The conclusion is that both quality control mechanisms to evaluate the assurance of the cytologic diagnosis in the Cytopathology Laboratory of the General Hospital of Mexico have acceptable results.

REFERENCES

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer: IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention Vol. 10. Cervical Cancer Screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005.

2. Bray F, Loos A, McCarron P, Weiderpass E, Arbyn M, Møller H, Hakama M, Parkin D. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: Changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 677-686.

3. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisan P, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2002: Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide, version 2.0. IARC Cancer Base Nº 5. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2004.

4. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2001; 79: 954-962.

5. Hutchinson ML, Lapidus SN, Inhorn SL, Papillo J. A perspective on modern quality control methods. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 837-841.

6. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 4-8.

7. Ashton PR. American Society of Cytotechnology quality assurance survey data: Summary report. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 451-454.

8. Naryshkin S. The false-negative fraction for Papanicolaou smears: How often are “abnormal” smears not detected by a “standard” screening cytologist? Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997; 121: 270-272.

9. Frable WJ, Austin RM, Greening SE, Collins RJ, Hillman RL, Kobler TP, Koss LG, Mitchell H, Perey R, Rosenthal DL, Sidoti MS, Somrak TM. Medico legal affairs. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.

10. Dudding N. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control. Cytopathology 1995; 6: 95-99.

11. Arbyn M, Schenck U, Ellison E, Hanselaar A. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2003; 25 (99): 9-16.

12. Rowe LR, Marshall CJ, Bentz JS. One hundred percent thorough quality control rescreening of liquid-based monolayers in cervicovaginal cytopathology. Cancer 2002; 25 (96): 325-329.

13. Amaral RG, Zeferino LC, Hardy E, Westin MC, Martinez EZ, Montemor EB. Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs 10% random rescreening. Acta Cytol 2005; 49: 244-248.

14. Ortiz VG, Duarte TRM, Cortez ORH, Murguía RL, Sosa CC, Robles SS et al. Control de calidad interno en citología cérvico-vaginal mediante revisión rápida. Evaluación de la capacidad del personal del laboratorio para utilizar el procedimiento. Rev Med Hosp Gen Mex 2001; 64: 6-10.

15. Córdova-Ramírez S, Olivares-Montano AK, Robles-Sánchez S, Alonso-de Ruiz P. Revisión rápida como control de calidad interno en citología cervicovaginal. Experiencia en el Hospital General de México. Rev Med Hosp Gen Mex 2005; 68: 213-217.

16. Landis RJ, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159.

17. Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, Zaleski MS, Raab SS. Variability in cytologic-histologic correlation practices and implications for patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129: 893-898.

18. Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE, Sattich M, Banks H, Cibull ML, Davey DD. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 103: 594-597.

19. Rasbridge SA, Nayagam M. Discordance between cytologic and histologic reports in cervical intraepithelial Neoplasia. Results of a one year audit. Acta Cytol 1995; 39: 648-653.