Trends in the frequency and predictive value of reporting high grade abnormalities in cervical smears

Correspondance histologique des frottis cervico-utérins détectant un cancer ou une lésion de haut grade

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to analyze the histological-cytological correlations for Pap smears having detected cancer or high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion (HSIL) of the cervix.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

The study about 311 women is retrospective. The average age is 36.4 years. Group 1 (histological diagnosis of high-grade or invasive lesion) includes 244 women (77.5%). Group 2 (histological diagnosis other than high-grade or invasive lesion) includes 37 women (11.9%) with a presumed diagnosis of HSIL. Group 3 (absence of histological follow-up) includes 30 women (9.6%) with a presumed diagnosis of HSIL.

RESULTS

In group 1, the presumed cytological diagnosis is HSIL in 229 cases, squamous carcinoma in 11 cases and adenocarcinoma in two cases. In this group, the average delay between the Pap smear and the first histology is equal to two months. It is longer than 6 months in seven cases. The diagnosis of cancer or high-grade lesion is confirmed histologically on a first biopsy of the cervix in 196 cases, a second or a third biopsy in 10 cases, an endocervical curettage in six cases and a surgical specimen in 32 cases. In the group 2, the histological diagnosis is normal-benign in 14 cases (presumed cytological false positives) and condyloma-CIN 1 in 23 cases (presumed overevaluations).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Results highlight benefits of interactive exchanges between clinicians and pathologists, and the necessity of review of discordant cases by several pathologists in due time, with written comments and coding of the conclusions of the review. Histological follow-up is late or not done in some women.

Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: audit and the impact of potential litigation. Retrospective review of 682 cases

For quality assurance purposes, the frequency of 'abnormal' cytological diagnoses of the non-systematic National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP) was evaluated. In 1999, an unexpected high number of Class (Cl) III cases (i.e. atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) was reported. The cytological and histological results were reviewed in order to detect a possible cause for this threefold increase. The abnormal Papanicolaou (PAP) smears examined by conventional methods from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2002 were analysed. The smears of 682 cases diagnosed in 1999 with a Cl III category were reviewed in 2000 and correlated with the available histological diagnoses provided by the Central Department of Pathology. Of the 682 Cl III cases, 176 cases (26.1%) had no follow-up, 314 cases (46.0%) had repeat cytology and 192 cases (28.2%) an histological correlate corresponding to 90 (46.9%) benign lesions, 78 (40.6%) squamous intraepithelial lesions, two (1%) invasive cervical cancers (one squamous and one glandular). Twenty-two Cl III cases (11.5%) were histologically within normal limits. Retrospective smear review confirmed 330 Cl III diagnoses (48.3%), 127 cases (18.6%) were recategorized as Cl IIIG (i.e. atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance), 22 cases (3.2%) as Cl IIID (i.e. mild to moderate dysplasia) and six cases (0.9%) as Cl IVa (i.e. severe dysplasia and/or carcinoma in situ). A total of 197 original Cl III cases had to be reclassified in the Cl II category (28.9%), only two cases showing mild and moderate dysplasia on histology. Thus, 195 cases (28.6%) comprised cytological overdiagnoses. The Cl III category being, by definition, a delicate and often subjective diagnosis, all external influences such as pressure of litigation should be avoided to reduce cytological overdiagnoses as a result of an unnecessary 'fear-factor'.

Is terminology used effectively to convey diagnostic certainty in radiology reports?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to assess the extent of agreement among radiologists and nonradiologists in perception of diagnostic certainty conveyed by words and phrases commonly used in radiology reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was performed in a large academic radiology department. To determine the commonly used terminology for conveying diagnostic certainty in radiology reports, 12 randomly selected radiologists from six different subspecialties were interviewed. The authors identified the 15 most commonly used words and phrases and included these in random order in a questionnaire sent to all staff radiologists (n = 45) and to 158 referring physicians. Physicians were asked to rank the 15 phrases in order of the diagnostic certainty conveyed by each, from 1 (most certain) to 15 (least certain), using each number only once. The kappa statistic was used to assess agreement in rank order among physicians.

RESULTS

The questionnaire response rate was 76% (n = 34) for radiologists and 49% (n = 78) for nonradiologists. There was excellent agreement among radiologists (kappa = 0.95) and nonradiologists (kappa = 0.93) in the rank order for the phrase diagnostic of. Although there was good agreement (kappa = 0.45) among radiologists for the word unlikely, agreement among nonradiologists was poor (kappa = 0.27). There was very poor agreement among all physicians for the rank order of the other 13 phrases.

CONCLUSION

Among radiologists and nonradiologists, concordance was poor regarding the diagnostic certainty associated with phrases commonly used in radiology reports. Because poor agreement could lead to suboptimal quality of care, the standardization of terminology would benefit all parties.

Borderline nuclear change; can a subgroup be identified which is suspicious of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, i e CIN 2 or worse?

Borderline nuclear change; can a subgroup be identified which is suspicious of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, i.e. CIN 2 or worse? Only 10% of first borderline smears are associated with a histological high-grade (HG) abnormality, i.e. CIN 2,3, invasive malignancy or glandular neoplasia on subsequent investigation. The advantages of highlighting this subgroup are obvious but is this possible? From 1996 and 1997, 242 borderline smears with histological follow-up were examined by two independent experienced observers (observer 1 and 2) without prior knowledge of further investigation results. For each smear a profile of nuclear details was produced, also noting the type of cell mainly affected by the process; then the observers were asked to assess the degree of worry of HG disease for each smear i.e. whether the smear fell into group 1 borderline changes indicative of low-grade (normal, inflammatory, CIN1/HPV) disease (BL/LG) or group 2 difficult borderline smear, HG disease (CIN 2,3, invasive neoplasia or glandular neoplasia) cannot be excluded (BL/HG). Observer 1 selected a group of BL/HG with a PPV for HG disease of 38%, with observer 2 having a PPV of 50%; this compared with the overall laboratory HG disease PPV for borderline smears of 14%. Both observers found the most useful criterion to be the increase in nuclear:cytoplasmic ratio. Our results show that it is possible to separate a small group of borderline smears which should be classified as 'borderline/high grade lesion difficult to exclude' (BL/HG). Both observers had some success in arriving at this classification although their method of selecting out this group was quite different.