Results of multiple-slide, blinded review of papanicolaou slides in the context of litigation: Determining what can be detected regularly and reliably

Cancer

Volumn 105, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 263-269

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Holladay, E Blair ^b   Geils, Karen B ^b  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Blinded review; Cytopathology; Litigation; Pathology; Quality; Sensitivity

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL LABORATORY; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 26844489722     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21319     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Fitzgibbons PL, Austin RM. Expert review of histologic slides and Papanicolaou tests in the context of litigation or potential litigation. Surgical Pathology Committee and Cytopathology Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:1717-1719.
2. Volk EE, Austin RM. Before litigation, blinded rescreening a must. CAP updates guide for review of Pap tests in litigation or potential litigation. CAP Today. 2002.
3. Austin RM. Updated ASC/AGC pap litigation guidelines support unbiased blinded rescreening as key pre-litigation test. ASC/AGC Bulletin. 2002;63-68.
4. Austin RM. Results of blinded rescreening of Papanicolaou smears versus biased retrospective review. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:227-228.
5. The Pap smear on trial. Lab Med. 1997;26.
6. Frable WJ. Guidelines for experts reviewing Papanicolaou smear litigation cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:331-334.
7. Stastny JF, Spires S, Austin RM. Pap litigation: where do we go from here? Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;19:235-237.
8. Austin RM. The Papanicolaou smear. Medicine's most successful cancer screening procedure is threatened. JAMA. 1997;277:754-755.
9. Frable WJ, Austin RM, Greening SE, et al. Medicolegal affairs. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: an International Expert Conference and Tutorial [review]. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:76-119; discussion 120-132.
10. Holladay EB, Austin RM. Multiple slide blinded rescreening for review of litigation slides. In: Allen K, Holladay EB, editors. Risk management for the cytology laboratory. 2001:149-162.
11. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology. 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004.
12. Renshaw AA, Young ML, Holladay EB. Blinded review of Pap smears in the context of litigation: using statistical analysis to define appropriate thresholds. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2004;102:136-141.
13. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests. Measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001; 93:106-110.
14. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology. A review. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002;96:210-217.
15. College of American Pathologists. Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP) Year End Summary Report. Chicago: College of American Pathologists, 2000.
16. Renshaw AA, Dubray-Benstein B, Cobb CJ, et al. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma in ThinPrep slides. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:403-405.
17. Renshaw AA, Mody DR, Lozano RL, Volk EE, Davey DD, Birdsong GG. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix is significantly more difficult to identify and categorize than adenocarcinoma, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, or squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:153-157.
18. Renshaw AA, Schulte MA, Plott E, et al. Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in ThinPrep Papanicolaou test slides: comparison of cases that performed poorly with those that performed well in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:746-748.
19. Renshaw AA, Prey MU, Moriarty AT. Cytologic features of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in conventional slides: comparison of cases which performed poorly and well in the College of American Pathologists gynecologic cytology program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:733-735.
20. Renshaw AA, Dubray-Benstein BL, Hughes JL. Cytologic features of low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in Thin-Prep and conventional smear specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:23-25.
21. Renshaw AA, Hughes JL. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma in conventional smears. Arch Pathol Lab Med. In press.
22. Renshaw AA. Experts in Wonderland: In search of the right test and the scientific method. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000; 23:297-298.