One Hundred Percent Thorough Quality Control Rescreening of Liquid-Based Monolayers in Cervicovaginal Cytopathology

Cancer

Volumn 96, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 325-329

  Rowe, Leslie R ^a   Marshall, C Jay ^a,b   Bentz, Joel S ^a,b  

^a ARUP INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical carcinoma; Cytology; Quality assurance; Quality control (QC); Rescreening; Screening error; ThinPrep Pap test (TP)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL LABORATORY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PATHOLOGY; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0037176175     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10883     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ries LA, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg LX, Edwards BK, editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review: 1973-1995. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute, 1998 NIH (http://seer.cancer.gov/esr/1973_1995/cervix.pdf).
2. Regulations for implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988: a summary. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1992;41:1-17.
3. Tabbaro SO, Sidawy MK. Evaluation of the 10% rescreen of negative gynecologic smears as a quality assurance measure. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;14:191-192.
4. Melamed MR, Flehinger BJ. Reevaluation of quality assurance in the cytology laboratory [editorial]. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:461-465.
5. Lemay C, Meisels A. 100% rapid (partial) rescreening for quality assurance. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:86-88
6. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:4-8.
7. Marshall CJ, Rowe L, Bentz JS. Improved quality-control detection of false-negative Pap smears using the AutoPap 300 QC System. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20:170-174.
8. Ashfaq R, Liang Y, Saboorian MH. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of negative cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;31:13-36.
9. Abulafia O, Sherer DM. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analysis of the performance of the AutoPap QC System. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1999;54:469-476.
10. Abulafia O, Sherer DM. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analysis of the performance of the PAPNET System. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1999;54:253-264.
11. Arbyn M, Schenck U. Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing. A metaanalysis. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:949-957.
12. Krieger P, Naryshkin S. Random rescreening of cytologic smears: a practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol. 1994;38:291-298.
13. Martin-Hirsch P, Jarvis G, Kitchener H, Lilford R. Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD001936.
14. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:215-219.
15. Goodman A, Hutchinson ML. Cell surplus on sampling devices after routine cervical cytologic smears. A study of residual cell populations. J Reprod Med. 1996;41:239-241.
16. Briggs RM. Dysplasia and early neoplasia of the uterine cervix. A review. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;43:70-99.
17. Jones BA. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Rescreening of 3762 previous cases for current high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and carcinoma; a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 312 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:1097-1103.
18. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR. False-negative results in cervical cytology studies. Acta Cytol. 1985;29:1043-1046.
19. Anderson GH, Bendet JL, Le Richie JC, Matisic JP, Thompson JE. Invasive cancer of the cervix in British Columbia: a review of demography and screening histories of 437 cases seen from 1985-88. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:1-4.
20. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwart PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer in Connecticut. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:791-794.
21. Rylander E. Negative smears in women developing invasive cervical cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1977;56:115-118.
22. 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;81:264-271.
23. Renshaw AA. A practical problem with calculating the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1999;87:351-353.
24. Stohler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500-1505.
25. Gatscha RM, Abadi M, Babore S, Chhieng D, Miller MJ, Saigo PE. Smears diagnosed as ASCUS: interobserver variation and follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25:138-140.
26. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GC, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:278-284.
27. Linder J, Zahniser DJ. The ThinPrep Pap test. A review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:30-38.
28. Linder J, Zahniser DJ. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:139-144.