ASC/SIL ratio for cytotechnologists: A survey of its utility in clinical practice

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 180-183

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Auger, Manon ^b   Birdsong, George ^c   Cibas, Edmund S ^d   Henry, Michael ^e   Hughes, Jonathan H ^f   Moriarty, Ann ^g   Tench, William ^h   Wilbur, David C ⁱ   Elsheikh, Tarik M ^j  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^f Laboratory Med Consultants Ltd   (United States)

^g Ameripath Indiana ^*  (United States)

^h Palomar Medical Center   (United States)

ⁱ MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^j BALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

ASC to SIL ratio; Diagnostic accuracy; Gynecological cytology; Quality control

Indexed keywords

ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELL; CELL DAMAGE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CYTOTECHNOLOGIST; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMAGING SYSTEM; LABORATORY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SHORT SURVEY; SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; WORKLOAD;

ALLIED HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 76149102900     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.21167     Document Type: Short Survey

References (14)

1. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Narynshkin S, et al. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: Current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:440-444.
2. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielson ML, et al. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: Interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:390-396.
3. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, et al. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: Current laboratory practice of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:203-211.
4. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: Definitions, criteria and explanatory notes. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2004.
5. Juskevicius R, Zou KH, Cibas ES. An analysis of factors that influence the ASCUS/SIL ratio of pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116:331-335.
6. Nascimento AF, Cibas ES. The ASC/SIL ratio for cytopathologists as a quality control measure: A follow-up study. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;128:653-656.
7. Renshaw AA, Deschenes M, Auger M. ASC/SIL ratio for cytotechnologists: A useful surrogate of screening sensitivity. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:776-781.
8. 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.
9. Vassilokos P, Petignat P, Boulvain M, Campana A. Primary screening for cervical cancer precursors by the combined use of liquid -based cytology, computer assisted cytology, and HPV DNa testing. Br J Cancer 2002;86:382-388.
10. Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M. Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: A study using rapid prescreening. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2008;114:149-154.
11. Djemli A, Khetani K, Case B, et al. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameter with their performance in rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2006;108:306-310.
12. Djemli A, Khetani K, Auger M. Rapid prescreening of Pap smears: A practical and efficient quality control strategy. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2006;108:21.
13. Smith J, Nicholas D, Boyd K, et al. Rapid prescreening: A validated quality assurance measure in cervical cytology. Cytopathology 2003;14:275-280.
14. Tavares SB, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, Pinheiro de Albuquerque EB, 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 (Cancer Cytopathol) 2008;114: 165-170.