Comparing methods to measure error in gynecologic cytology and surgical pathology

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 130, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 626-629

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; GOLD STANDARD; GYNECOLOGY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SAMPLING; SCREENING; SURGERY;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; MALE; PATHOLOGY, SURGICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33646703051     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnoses. Cancer. 2005;104:2205-2213.
2. Raab SS, Nakhleh RE, Ruby SG. Patient safety in anatomic pathology: measuring discrepancy frequencies and causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:459-466.
3. Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med. 2004;24:849-863.
4. Zadawi IM, Bennett G, Jain S, Brown M. Internal quality assurance activities of a surgical pathology department in an Australian teaching hospital. J Clin Pathol. 1998;1998:51.
5. Zarbo RJ, Meier FA, Raab SS. Error detection in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1237-1245.
6. Giard RWM, Hermans D. Interpretation of diagnostic cytology with likelihood ratios. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1990;114:852-854.
7. Genest DR, Dean B, Lee KR, Sheets E, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Qualifying the cytologic diagnosis of "atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance" affects the predictive value of a squamous intraepithelial lesion on subsequent biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:338-341.
8. Sadler L, Saftlas A, Wang W, Exeter M, Whittaker J, McCowan L. Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. JAMA. 2004; 291:2100-2106.
9. Bostwick DG, Bostwick KC. Vanishing prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: incidence and long-term follow-up in 38 cases. BJU Int. 2004; 94:57-58.
10. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Comparison of disagreement and error rates for three types of interdepartmental consultations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124:878-882.
11. Kronz JD, Westra WH, Epstein JI. Mandatory second opinion surgical pathology at a large referral hospital. Cancer. 1999;86:2426-2438.
12. Renshaw AA, Holladay EB, Geils KB. Results of multiple blinded review of Pap slides in the context of litigation: determining what can be regularly and reliably detected. Cancer Cytopathol. 2005;105:263-269.
13. Rosen PP. Review of 'outside' pathology before treatment should be mandatory. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1235-1236.
14. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL triage study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500-1505.
15. Confortini M, Carozzi F, Dalla Palma P, et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Cytopathology. 2003;14:231-234.
16. Renshaw AA, Wang E, Mody DR, Wilbur DC, Davey DD, Colgan TJ. Measuring the significance of field validation in the College of American Pathologists gynecologic cytology program: how good are the experts? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:609-613.
17. Bruner JM, Inouye L, Fuller GN, Langford LA. Diagnostic discrepancies and their clinical impact in a neuropathology referral practice. Cancer. 1997;79: 796-803.
18. Renshaw AA, Bellerose B, DiNisco SA, Minier LJ, Lee KR. The false negative rate of Pap smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:344-350.
19. Renshaw AA, Cronin JA, Minier LJ, Whitman T, Jiroutek M, Cibas ES. Performance characteristics of rapid (30 second) prescreening: implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;111:517-522.
20. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, Young ML. Quantifying the value of in-house consultation in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:751-754.
21. Renshaw AA, Pinnar NE, Jiroutek MR, Young ML. Blinded review as a method for quality improvement in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:961-963.
22. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Granter SR, Gould EW. Agreement and error rates using blinded review to evaluate surgical pathology material. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:797-800.
23. Trotter MJ, Bruecks AK. Interpretation of skin biopsies by general pathologists: diagnostic discrepancy rates measured by blinded review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:1489-1492.
24. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis, II: interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:900-910.
25. Keenlyside RA, Collins CL, Hancock JS, et al. Do proficiency test results correlate with the work performance of screeners who screen Papanicolaou smears? Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;112:769-776.
26. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false negative rate of rescreening in a two arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer Cytopathol. 2001;93: 106-110.
27. McCaughey WT, Colby TV, Battifora H, et al. Diagnosis of diffuse malignant mesothelioma: experience of a US/Canadian mesothelioma panel. Mod Pathol. 1991;4:342-353.
28. 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.
29. Fowkes FGR. Diagnostic vigilance. Lancet. 1986;8479:493-494.
30. 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.
31. Neal MH, Kline TS. Distraction index, part I: the elusive trich. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;6:367-369.
32. Schulte MA. Distraction index, part II: inflammation in nongynecologic cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:149-150.
33. Renshaw AA. An accurate and precise methodology for routine determination of the false negative rate of Pap smear screening. Cancer Cytopathol. 2001; 93:86-92.
34. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology: a review. Cancer Cytopathol. 2002;96:210-217.
35. Holladay EB, Austin RM. Multiple case blinded rescreening for review of litigation cases. In: Allen KA, Holladay EB, eds. Risk Management for the Cytology Laboratory. Raleigh, NC: American Society of Cytotechnologists; 2001:149-162.
36. Renshaw AA, Young ML, Holladay EB. Blinded review of Pap smears in the context of litigation: using statistical analysis to define appropriate thresholds. Cancer Cytopathol. 2004;102:136-141.
37. Renshaw AA. Estimating the percentage of Papanicolaou smears that can be reproducibly identified: modeling Papanicolaou smear interpretation based on multiple blinded rescreenings. Cancer Cytopathol. 2001;93:241-245.
38. O'Sullivan JP, A'Hern RP, Chapman PA, et al. A case-control study of true positive versus false negative smears in women with CIN 3 [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:1543.
39. O'Sullivan JP, Chapman PA, Jenkins L, Smith R. Characteristics of high grade dyskaryotic cervical smears likely to be missed on rapid rescreening. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:37-40.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Renshaw AA, Plott E, Dubray-Benstein B, et al. Cytologic features of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in ThinPrep slides: comparison of cases which performed poorly and well in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:746-748.
43. Renshaw AA, Prey MU, Hodes L, Weisson M, Haja J, 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.
44. Renshaw AA, Dubray-Benstein BL, Haja J, Hughes JL. Cytologic features of low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in ThinPrep and conventional smear specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:23-25.
45. Renshaw AA, Schwartz MR, Wang E, Haja J, Hughes JH. Cytologic features of adenocarcinoma, not otherwise specified, in conventional smears: 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. 2006;130:23-26.
46. Husain OAN, Butler EB, Evans DMD, Macgregor JE, Yule R. Quality control in cervical cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1974;27:935-944.
47. Renshaw AA. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control: when bad data is worse than no data, or what works, what doesn't, and why. Clin Lab Med. 2003;23:695-708.
48. Weydert JA, De Young BR, Cohen MB. A preliminary diagnosis service provides prospective blinded dual-review of all general surgical pathology cases in an academic institution. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:801-805.
49. Renshaw AA, Gould EW. Measuring the value of review of pathology material by a second pathologist. Am J Clin Pathol. In press.