Córdova-Ramírez S, Olivares-Montano AK, Robles-Sánchez S, Alonso-de Ruiz P

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 213-217
PDF size: 72.80 Kb.

ABSTRACT

At the Mexico City General Hospital Cytopathology Department some negative cases are randomly selected as an in-house quality control procedure. The rapid review of all cases procedure was adopted some months ago. The purpose of this study is to compare both methods. In a 7 year period 137,545 pap smears were reviewed, of these 135,937 were negative. 6,117 (4.5%) were reviewed for a second time with 11 false negative results. Additional positive cases represented 0.7% of all cases. In a six months period 6,622 pap smears were seen and all were rapid reviewed again as part of the new in-house quality control program. Twenty seven false negative and 6 false positive cases were detected. Of all positive cases 16.2% were diagnosed after been reviewed as part of the new quality control procedure and 0.1% of all negative cases were also detected after been rapid reviewed for a second time. Rapid review of all pap smears is important because it can detect new cases previously misdiagnosed.

REFERENCES

1. Van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP, Gaillard HL, Go DM. Screening errors in cervical cytology screening. Acta Cytol 1987; 31: 34-436.

2. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Buiatti E, Nájera-Aguilar P, Alonso-de Ruíz P, Hernández-Avila M. Evaluation model of the mexican national program for early cervical cancer detection and proposals for a new approach. Cancer Causes Control 1998; 9: 241-251.

3. Farrell DJ, Bilkhu S, Gibson LM, Cummings L, Wadehra V. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen? Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 251-260.

4. Paris AL. Conference on the state of the art in quality control measures for diagnostic cytology laboratories. Background and introduction. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 423-426.

5. Kaminsky FC, Burke RJ, Haberle KR, Mullins DL. Statistical analysis of data in cervical cytology from the viewpoint of total quality management. Acta Cytol 1995; 39: 222-231.

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

7. Melamed MR, Flehinger BJ. Reevaluation of quality assurance in the cytology laboratory. Acta Cytol 1992; 36: 461-465.

8. Renshaw AA, Bellerose B, Di Nisco SA, Minter LJ, Lee KR. False negative rate of cervical cytologic smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 344-350.

9. Vooijs PG, van Aspert van Erp AJM, van’t Hof Grootenboer BE, Hanselaar AGJM. Parameters of quality control in cervical cytodiagnosis. Compendium on quality assurance, proficiency testing and workload limitations in clinical cytology. Chicago, Illinois: Tutorials of Cytology, 1995; 95-108.

10. Herbert A, Johnson J, Patnik J. Achievable standars, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Cytopathology 1995; 6: 301-303.

11. Wilson NJ, Molyneux AJ. Rapid review in cervical cytology: a retrospective review of cases detected on rapid review within a DGH cytology department and subsequent outcome. Cytopathology 2004; 15: 93-96.

12. Arbin M, Schenck U, Ellison E, Hanselaar A. Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2003; 99: 9-16.

13. Dudding N, Heder EM, Lancucki L, Rice S. Rapid screening: a comparative study. Cytopathology 2001; 12: 235-248.

14. McGoogan E. Quality assurance in cervical screening in the United Kingdom. Ensuring that quality continues to improve. Compendium on quality assurance, proficiency testing and workload limitations in clinical cytology. Chicago, Illinois: Tutorials of Cytology, 1995; 125-133.

15. Comunicación personal de datos no publicados.

16. Ortiz-Vázquez G, Duarte Torres R, Cortez-Ortega RH, Murguía-Riechers L, Sosa-Cazarín C, Robles-Sánchez S 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.

17. Cioc AM, Julius CJ, Proca DM, Tranovich VL, Keyhani-Rofagha S. Cervical biopsy/cytology correlation data can be collected prospectively and shared clinically. Diag Cytopathol 2002; 26: 49-52.

18. DiBonito L, Falconieri G, Tomasic G, Coautti I, Bonifacio D, Dudine S. Cervical cytopathology: An evaluation of its accuracy based on cytohistologic comparison. Cancer 1993; 72: 3002-3006.

19. Diehl ARS, Prolla JC. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears for internal quality control. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 949-953.