Ortiz-Vázquez G, Duarte-Torres R, Cortez-Ortega RH, Murguía-Riechers L, Sosa-CazarínC, Robles-Sánchez S, Salazar-Martínez E, Romero-Guadarrama M, Alonso-de Ruiz P

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 6-10
PDF size: 54.04 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Several procedures for internal quality control in cervico vaginal cytology have been used in order. to avoid the false negative cases. One of them is the partial rescreening. The objective of this protocol was to evaluate the achievement of the laboratory personnel with this procedure. Sixty-six slides were chosen through an aleatory method and each one was evaluated by 8 observers in a time of 30-50 seconds, utilizing the 10x objective. The final diagnosis of the abnormal cases were reached by concordance among the observers. Three abnormal cases were found and their final diagnosis were atypical cells of undetermined significance, (ASCUS) favoring a low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. One of the observers (number 8) only identified one abnormal case: The overall performance was: sensitivity 91%, specificity and positive predictive value 100%, specificity and positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 96.6% and false negative value 8.3%. This study demonstrates that the majority of the laboratory personnel had a well performance utilizing partial reescreening for detection of cellular abnormalities. One of the observers needs further training in order to improve her achievement.

REFERENCES

1. Robles SC, White F, Peruga A. Tendencias de la mortalidad por cáncer de cuello del útero en las Américas. Bol Oficina Panam 1996; 121: 478-490.

2. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-014-SSA2-1994. Para la prevención, diagnóstico, Tratamiento, Control y Vigilancia Epidemiológica del cáncer Cérvico Uterino.

3. Federal study shows conventional Pap test remains most effective way to diagnose cervical cancer. ACOG Today 1999; 43 (3): l.

4. Vooijs GP et al. Quality assurance and Quality Control in Clinical Cytology. Symposium by correspondence. Compendium on quality assurance proficiency testing and workload limitations in clinical cytology. Tutorials in Clinical Cytology IAC 1995: 319-389.

5. Hutchinson ML. Editorial. Assesing the cost and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 4-8.

6. Clinical Laboratory improvement amendments of 1998. PL. 100-578 (9): 24-319.

7. Turnbull LS. The Royal Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, Meyerside. Inglaterra. Task Force No 9. Automated prescreening and rescreening. International Consensus Conference of the fight against cervical cancer. International Academy of Cytology 2000. Chicago III.

8. Simon TR, Ricci A. The efficiency of vaginal and cervical smears (abstr). In: Transactions of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Intersociety. Cytology Council, Augusta Georgia. USA, 1957.

9. Faraker CA, Boxer ME. Rapid review (partial rescreening) of cervical cytology: Four years experience and quality assurance implications. J Clin Pathol 1996; 49: 587-591.

10. Farrel DJ, Bilku S, Cummings L, Wadhera V. Rapid reescreening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control: For how long should be rescreen? Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 251-260.

11. Lemay Ch, Meisels A. 100 rapid (partial) rescreening for quality assurance. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 86-88.

12. Lwanga SK, Lemeshow A. Sample size determination in health studies: Practical manual. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991; 29-31.

13. Informe anual de desempeño. Laboratorio de Citopatología. Unidad de Patología, Facultad de Medicina, UNAM. Hospital General de México. 1998.

14. Melamed MR. Rescreening for quality assurance in cytology. Editorial. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 12-13.

15. Weissbrod D, Torres M, Rodríguez A, Ureña I, Estrada J, Reyes ME, Carreto AJ. Comparación del examen de citología cervical efectuado por el método Papnet y por microscopia convencional. Bol Sanit Panam 1996; 121: 528-536.