Reclassification of negative smears as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in quality assurance reviews: Implications and limitations

Cancer

Volumn 87, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 346-350

  Stanley, Donald E ^a   Plowden, Karen ^b   Sherman, Mark E ^b  

^a Rutland Regional Medical Center   (United States)

^b DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; COLPOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA;

CARCINOMA; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATHOLOGY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR VIRUS INFECTIONS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINA; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0033604721     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991225)87:6<346::AID-CNCR4>3.0.CO;2-M     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. National Cancer Institute. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. JAMA 1989; 262:931-4.
2. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal diagnoses. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994:30-43.
3. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology: the 1992 National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1994;271:1866-9.
4. Ferris DG, Cox JT, Burke L, Litaker MS, et al. Colposcopy quality control: establishing colposcopy criterion standards for the National Cancer Institute ALTS trial using cervigrams. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 1998;2:195-203.
5. Krieger P, Naryshkin S. Random screening of cytologic smears: a practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1994;38:291-8.
6. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, Ransley JE. Where's the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91: 973-6.
7. 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.
8. Ostor A. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186-92.
9. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423-8.
10. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, Manos MM, Scott DR, Kuman RJ, et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology: correlation of cytopathologic diagnoses with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:182-7.
11. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS, Eakins D, Evans DM, Gradwell E, et al. Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br Med J 1989;298:707-10.
12. Renshaw AA. Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: the need to review abnormal cases. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1997;81:264-71.
13. Guidelines for review of gyn cytology samples in the context of litigation or potential litigation. Am Soc Cytopathol Bull 1998; 35.
14. Austin RM. Results of blinded rescreening of Papanicolaou smears versus biased retrospective review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:311-4.