Interobserver agreement in the reporting of cervical biopsy specimens obtained from women screened by visual inspection with acetic acid and hybrid capture 2

International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 509-515

  Basu, Partha ^a   Kamal, Meherbano ^c   Ray, Chinmayi ^b   Bhat, Dharitri ^c   Ghosh, Ishita ^a   Mittal, Srabani ^a   Chatterjee, Simi ^a   Samaddar, Anushree ^a   Biswas, Jaydip ^a  

^a CHITTARANJAN NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (India)

^b VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (India)

^c GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

Author keywords

Bethesda system; Cervical biopsy; Hybrid Capture 2; Interobserver agreement; VIA

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID; VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BETHESDA SYSTEM; CANCER SCREENING; CARCINOGEN TESTING; COLPOSCOPY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TYPE 16; HUMAN TISSUE; HYBRID CAPTURE 2; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUNCH BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERUS CARCINOMA; VIRUS DETECTION; VISUAL INSPECTION WITH ACETIC ACID; WART VIRUS; BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC USE; GENETICS; INDIA; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PATHOLOGY; PREGNANCY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VIROLOGY;

ACETIC ACID; ADULT; BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; COLPOSCOPY; DNA, VIRAL; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMANS; INDIA; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PREGNANCY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84883458314     PISSN: 02771691     EISSN: 15387151     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31827b26b1     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Riotton G, Christopherson WM, Lunt R. Cytology of the female genital tract. In: World Health Organization, eds. International Histological Classification of Tumours No. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1973.
2. Richart RM. Current concepts in obstetrics and gynecology: the patient with an abnormal Pap smear-screening techniques and management. New Engl J Med 1980;302:332-4.
3. Richart RM. A modified terminology for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:131-3.
4. Anderson MC, Brown CL, Buckley CH, et al. Current views on cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 1991;44: 969-78.
5. Darragh TM, Colgan TJ, Cox JT, et alMembers of LAST Project Work Groups. The Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology Standardization Project for HPV-associated lesions: background and consensus recommendations from the College of American Pathologists and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:1266-97.
6. Llewellyn H. Observer variation, dysplasia grading, and HPV typing: a review. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;114:S21-35.
7. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Beck JS, et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 1989;42:231-8.
8. de Vet HCW, Knipschild PG, Schouten HJA, et al. Interobserver variation in histopathological grading of cervical dysplasia. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1395-8.
9. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS, et al. Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelialneoplasia. BMJ 1989;298:707-10.
10. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS, et al. Reporting cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN): intra- and inter-pathologist variation and factors associated with disagreement. Histopathology 1990;16:371-6.
11. Cluggage MC, Walsh MY, Thornton CM, et al. Inter and intra-observer variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions using a modified Bethesda grading system. BJOG 1998;105:206-10.
12. Gaffikin L, Lauterbach M, Blumenthal PD. Performance of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening: a qualitative summary of evidence to date. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003;58:543-50.
13. Wright TC, Jr. Cervical cancer screening in the 21st century: is it time to retire the PAP smear? Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007;50: 313-23.
14. Mayrand M, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1579-88.
15. Fleiss JL, eds. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions.; 2nd ed New York: John Wiley; 1981:38-46.
16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
17. Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:264-72.
18. Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson JL, et al. Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:430-4.
19. Beck JS. Observer variability in reporting of breast lesions. J Clin Pathol 1985;38:1358-65.
20. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:18-25.
21. Basu P, Mittal S, Bhaumik S, et al. Prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus and cervical intraepithelial neoplasias in a previously unscreened population-a pooled analysis from three studies. Int J Cancer 2012 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27793. [Epub ahead of print].