Improvement in the routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time: A study using rapid prescreening

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 117, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 311-317

  Brimo, Fadi ^a   Renshaw, Andrew A ^b   Deschenes, Majorie ^c   Charbonneau, Michele ^a   Auger, Manon ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^b BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

^c LAVAL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Diagnostic accuracy; Gynecologic cytology; Improvement; Performance; Quality control; Rapid prescreening; Routine screening; Sensitivity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; PATHOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; TIME; VAGINA SMEAR;

EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 73349090937     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20042     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs; revision of the laboratory regulations for the Medicare, Medicaid, and Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act of 1967 programs-HCFA. Final rule with comment period. Fed Regist. 1990; 55: 9538-9610.
2. Guidelines for quality assurance programs in cytopathology. Canadian Society of Cytology. Can J Med Technol. 1990; 52: 51-52, 54-56, 62.
3. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration: Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs. Amended 1988. Fed Regist. 1992; 57: 493-1257.
4. From the Centers for Disease Control. Regulations for implementing Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988: a summary. JAMA. 1992; 267: 1725-1727, 1731-1734.
5. Arbyn M, Schenck U, Ellison E, Hanselaar A. Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears. Cancer. 2003; 99: 9-16.
6. Melamed MR. Presidential address. Twentieth annual scientific meeting, American Society of Cytology. Acta Cytol. 1973; 17: 285-288.
7. Melamed MR, Flehinger BJ. Reevaluation of quality assurance in the cytology laboratory. Acta Cytol. 1992; 36: 461-465.
8. Tavares SB, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology. Cancer. 2008; 114: 165-170.
9. Faraker CA. Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. Cytopathology. 1993; 4: 47-50.
10. Halford JA, Wright RG, Ditchmen EJ. Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET Testing System. Acta Cytol. 1997; 41: 79-81.
11. Rosenthal DL, Acosta D, Peters RK. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System. Acta Cytol. 1996; 40: 120-126.
12. Rowe LR, Marshall CJ, Bentz JS. One hundred percent thorough quality control rescreening of liquid-based monolayers in cervicovaginal cytopathology. Cancer. 2002; 96: 325-329.
13. Birdsong GG. Automated screening of cervical cytology specimens. Hum Pathol. 1996; 27: 468-481.
14. Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 2006; 50: 309-311.
15. Halford JA, Wright RG, Ditchmen EJ. Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25,656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening. Cytopathology. 1999; 10: 317-323.
16. Herbert A, Johnson J, Patnick J. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Cytopathology. 1995; 6: 301-303.
17. Renshaw AA, Cronin JA, Minter LJ, et al. 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.
18. Brooke D, Dudding N, Sutton J. Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice? Cytopathology. 2002; 13: 191-199.
19. Smith J, Nicholas D, Boyd K, Deacon-Smith R. Rapid pre-screening: a validated quality assurance measure in cervical cytology. Cytopathology. 2003; 14: 275-280.
20. Dudding N, Hewer EM, Lancucki L, Rice S. Rapid screening: a comparative study. Cytopathology. 2001; 12: 235-248.
21. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology: a review. Cancer. 2002; 96: 210-217.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human falsenegative rate of rescreening Pap tests. Measured in a 2-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001; 93: 106-110.
25. Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M. Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer. 2008; 114: 149-154.
26. Djemli A, Khetani K, Auger M. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy. Cancer. 2006; 108: 21-26.
27. Djemli A, Khetani K, Case BW, Auger M. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameters with their performance in rapid prescreening of papanicolaou smears. Cancer. 2006; 108: 306-310.
28. Renshaw AA, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Cibas ES. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process. Cancer. 1997; 81: 272-276.
29. Renshaw AA. Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: the need to review abnormal cases. Cancer. 1997; 81: 264-271.
30. Renshaw AA. Choosing battles or excuses in gynecologic cytology. Cancer. 2008; 114: 141-143.
31. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005; 123: 281-287.
32. Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002; 118: 399-407.
33. Doornewaard H, van der Schouw YT, van der Graaf Y, Bos AB, Habbema JD, van den Tweel JG. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. Mod Pathol. 1999; 12: 995-1000.
34. Bishop JW, Kaufman RH, Taylor DA. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic preparations. Acta Cytol. 1999; 43: 34-38.
35. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Cancer. 1998; 84: 273-280.
36. Tavares SB, de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme. Cytopathology. 2008; 19: 254-259.