Sotelo-Regil HR, Ibarra RM, Flores HL

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 309-314
PDF size: 218.56 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: One of the most important factors of quality laboratory improvement is cytohistologic correlation. Nevertheless, there is poor information about mexican pathology laboratories.
Methods: Cervical cytology and biopsy correlation was made in the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in 2006, and discrepancy cases were analized.
Results: In 2006 in the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, 13,365 cervical cytologic reports were made. Of these, 1,627 (12.57%) were positive. Of all cytology reports, 10.28% had biopsy material. Concordant cases were 80.14, discordant cases 19.06%, with a sensitivity of 89%, and specificity of 65%.
Conclusions: Knowledge of the different causes of cytohistologic discrepancies is useful in increasing the quality of cytologic interpretations. All cytology laboratories should establish parameters to accomplish in a routinary and appropriate way a cytohistologic correlation.

REFERENCES

1. Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE, Sattich M, et al. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. AJCP 1995;103(5):594-7.

2. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-2007, para la prevención, tratamiento y control de cáncer del cuello del útero y de la mama en atención primaria. México, 31 de mayo de 2007.

3. Dirección General de Estadística e Informática/Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). Estadísticas en Salud, mortalidad. México: Secretaría de Salud, 1999. Disponible en: http://www.ssa.gob.mx/

4. Fuente: Presentación Dr. Onoe (libreta y SICAM), JICA/SS.

5. Gupta PK, Erozan YS. Cytopathology laboratory accreditation, with special reference to the American Society of Cytology Programs. Acta Cytol 1989;33:443-7.

6. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. Final Rule (42 CFR Part 405, etc.). Fed Reg 1992;57:7001-186.

7. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer, 2004.

8. Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathol Annu 1973;8:301-28.

9. Koss LG, Melamed MR. Koss’ Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopatologic Bases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2006.

10. Chute DJ, Covell J, Pambuccian SE, Stellow EB. Cytologic-histologic correlation of screening and diagnostic Papanicolaou tests. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34(7):503-6.

11. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523-31.

12. Gupta S, Sodhani P. Why is high grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia under-diagnosed on cytology in a quarter of cases? Analysis of smear characteristics in discrepant cases. Indian J Cancer 2004;41(3):104-8.

13. Dodd LG, Sneige N, Villarreal Y, Fanning CV, et al. Quality-assurance study of simultaneously sampled, non-correlating cervical cytology and biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9(2):138-44.

14. Clary KM, Silverman JF, Liu Y, Sturgis CD, et. al. Cytohistologic discrepancies. A means to improve pathology practice and patient outcomes. AJCP 2002;117:567-73.

15. Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs: regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 57 Federal Register 1992;7001.

16. Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology. Experience with 1582 paired cases. AJCP 1995;103(1):32-34.

17. Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, Raab SS. Variability in cytologic-histologic correlation practices and implications for patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129(7):893-8.

18. Ibrahim S, Coogan A, Wax T. The clinical effect of prospective correlation of Pap smear and concomitant biopsies. Mod Pathol 1994;7:38A.

19. Cramer H, Schlenk E. An analysis of discrepancies between the cervical cytologic diagnosis and subsequent histopathologic diagnosis in 1260 cases. Acta Cytol 1994;38:812.

20. Adad SJ, Souza MA, Etchebehere RM. Cyto-histological correlation of 219 patients submitted to surgical treatment due to diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Sao Paulo Medical Journal 1999;117(2):81-84.

21. Tzeng JE, Chen JT, Chang MC, Ho Wl. Discordance between uterine cervical cytology and biopsy: results and etiologies of a one-year audit. J Med Sci 1999;15(1):26-31.

22. Rasbridge SA, Nayagam M. Discordance between cytologic and histologic reports in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Results of a one year audit. Acta Cytol 1995;39(4):648-53.

23. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:390-6.

24. Yalti S. Evaluation of cytologic screening results of the cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15(2):292-4.

25. Tabbara S, Saleh AD, Andersen WA, Barber SR. The Bethesda classification for squamous intraepithelial lesions: histologic, cytologic, and viral correlates. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79(3):338-46.

26. Zuna RE, Sienki A, Lightfoot S, Gaiser M. Cervical smear interpretations in women with a histologic diagnosis of severe dysplasia: factors associated with discrepant interpretations. Cancer 2002;96(4):218-24.

27. Power P, Gregoire J, Duggan M, Nation J. Low-grade Pap smears containing occasional high grade cells as a predictor of high-grade dysplasia. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006;28(19):884-7.

28. Anderson MB, Jones BA. False positive cervicovaginal cytology. A follow-up study. Acta Cytol 1997;41(6):1697-700.

29. Hearp ML, Locante AM, Ben-Rubin M, Dietrich R, David O. Validity of sampling error as a cause of non-correlation. Cancer 2007;(Epub ahead of print).

30. Ibrahim SN, Krigman HR, Coogan AC, Wax TD, et al. Prospective correlation of cervicovaginal cytologic and histologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;106(3):319-24.

31. Cioc AM, Julios CJ, Proca VL. Cervical biopsy/cytology correlation data can be collected prospectively and shared clinically. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26(1):49-52.