Liquid-based papanicolaou tests in endometrial carcinoma diagnosis: Performance, error root cause analysis, and quality improvement

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 137, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 248-254

  Sams, Sharon B ^a   Currens, Heather S ^a   Raab, Stephen S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytopathology; Endometrial adenocarcinoma; Medical error; Papanicolaou test; Quality improvement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; ENDOMETRIUM CARCINOMA; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TISSUE SECTION; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; ENDOMETRIAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPECIMEN HANDLING; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84856367287     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: 19437722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPLFBK1A2XJDQI     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Gomez-Fernandez C, Ganjei-Azar P, Behshid K, et al. Normal endometrial cells in Papanicolaou smears: prevalence in women with and without endometrial disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:874-878.
2. Schnatz PR, Guile M, O'Sullivan DM. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:701-708.
3. Mitchell H, Giles G, Medley G. Accuracy and survival benefit of cytologic prediction of endometrial carcinoma on routine cervical smears. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993;12:34-40. (Pubitemid 23013909)
4. Salomão DR, Hughes JH, Raab SS. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance favor endometrial origin. Criteria for separating low grade endometrial adenocarcinoma from benign endometrial lesions. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:458-464.
5. Larson DM, Johnson KK, Reyes CN, et al. Prognostic significance of malignant endometrial cervical cytology in patients with endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:399-403. (Pubitemid 24267299)
6. Demirkiran F, Arvas M, Erkun E, et al. The prognostic significance of cervico-vaginal cytology in endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1995;16:403-409.
7. Schneider ML, Wortmann M, Wegel A. Influence of histologic and cytologic grade and the clinical and the post surgical stage on the rate of endometrial adenocarcinoma detection by cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 1986;30:616-622. (Pubitemid 17207488)
8. Segal A, Frost FA, Miranda A, et al. Predictive value of diagnoses of endocervical glandular abnormalities in cervical smears. Pathology. 2003;35:198-203. (Pubitemid 36870592)
9. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, et al. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer. 2001;93:8-15.
10. Lee KR, Minter LJ, Granter SR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a study of 34 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;107:30-35. (Pubitemid 27104633)
11. Patel C, Ullal A, Roberts M, et al. Endometrial carcinoma detected with SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology: comparison with conventional cytology. Cytopathology. 2009;20:380-387.
12. Zhou J, Tomashefski J Jr, Khiyami A. Diagnostic value of the thin-layer, liquid based Pap test in endometrial cancer: a retrospective study with emphasis on cytomorphological features. Acta Cytol. 2007;51:735-741. (Pubitemid 47443607)
13. Schorge JO, Saboorian MH, Hynan L, et al. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer. 2002;96:338-343. (Pubitemid 37356008)
14. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Detection of endometrial adenocarcinoma with the ThinPrep Pap Test. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:260-265.
15. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The Bethesda System 2001: an update of new terminology for gynecologic cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119. (Pubitemid 34437346)
16. Mutch DN. The new FIGO staging system for cancers of the vulva, cervix, endometrium and sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115:325-328.
17. FIGO announcements, stages: 1988 revision. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35:125.
18. Cancer Committee Report to the General Assembly of FIGO. Classification and staging of malignant tumor in the female pelvis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1971;9:172-179.
19. Raab SS, Stone CH, Wojcik E, et al. Use of a new method in reaching consensus on the cause of cytologic-histologic correlation discrepancy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:836-842. (Pubitemid 44901834)
20. Koen TM, Mody DR, Schelber-Pacht M, et al. Limiting the use of atypical/inconclusive as a category in nongynecologic cytology specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1016-1019.
21. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM. Measuring quality in anatomic pathology. Clin Lab Med. 2008;28:245-259. (Pubitemid 351626236)
22. Aspden P, Corrigan J, Wolcott J, et al, eds. Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
23. Kaplan HS, Battles JB, Van der Schaf TW, et al. Identification and classification of the causes of events in transfusion medicine. Transfusion. 1998;389:1071-1081. (Pubitemid 28549010)
24. Simmons D. Sedation and patient safety. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2005;17:279-285. (Pubitemid 41188082)
25. Ramzy I, Mody DR. Gynecologic cytology: practical considerations and limitations. Clin Lab Med. 1991;11:271-292.
26. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 200;320:768-770.
27. Reason J. Understanding adverse events: human factors. Qual Health Care. 1995;4:80-89.
28. Leape LL. A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Eval Clin Pract. 1997;3:213-222. (Pubitemid 127499689)
29. Spear S, Bowen HK. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System. Harvard Bus Rev. September-October 1999:3-12.
30. US Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2007 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/uscs. Accessed June 5, 2011.
31. Hall KL, Dewar MA, Perchalski J. Screening for gynecological cancer: vulvar, vaginal, endometrial, and ovarian neoplasms. Prim Care. 1992;19:607-620.
32. Lea JS, Miller DS. Optimum screening interventions for gynecological malignancies. Tex Med. 2001;97:49-55.
33. Gerber B, Krause A, Müller H, et al. Ultrasonographic detection of asymptomatic endometrial cancer in postmenopausal patients offers no prognostic advantage over symptomatic disease discovered by uterine bleeding. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:64-71. (Pubitemid 32119361)
34. Gondos B, King EB. Significance of endometrial cells in cervicovaginal smears. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1977;7:486-490. (Pubitemid 8227720)
35. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004.