Randomized controlled trial evaluating rapid pre-screen of cervical cytology specimens

Rapid prescreen of cervical liquid-based cytology preparations: results of a study in an academic medical center

A rapid prescreening or rapid rescreening method for quality assurance in cervical cytology has been used in Europe and in Canada but has not been accepted in the United States. The rapid prescreen method was tested in a cytology laboratory that serves an academic medical center with a high-risk population for cervical cancer. For a period of 3 months, a tray of 20 sequentially numbered Surepath™ liquid-based preparations, randomly selected from the cervical cytology daily workload, were each prescreened in a random fashion for 1 minute. Experienced cytotechnologists performed the rapid prescreen. Results were recorded as negative, further review needed, or epithelial cell abnormality, category specified. The 20 cervical cytology preparations were then replaced in their same position in the daily workload for routine screening performed by another cytotechnologist. Final interpretation was by a cytopathologist as requested or required by Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. The rapid prescreen data was tabulated and compared with data for a similar time period using the laboratory's normal quality assurance program. Seven hundred and twelve cases underwent rapid prescreen. Six hundred and forty-two were interpreted as negative. Twenty-six cases were interpreted as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL) or higher. Forty-four cases were classified as needing further review. For the 642 negative cases by rapid prescreening, routine screening reported 537 as negative and 105 as either abnormal or needed cytopathologist review. The error rate for the rapid prescreen is 50 of 712 (7.0%); for LGSIL and above 19 of 712 (2.6%). Of the 105 abnormal cases or those submitted for cytopathologist review, 31 were interpreted as atypical squamous cells of undermined significance (ASCUS), 41 cases as reactive/repair, 17 as LGSIL, 4 as unsatisfactory, 1 as atypical squamous cells, cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H), 8 as the presence of endometrial cells in a women aged >40, 1 as malignant melanoma, and 2 as within normal limits with the presence of Actinomyces. The laboratory's routine quality assurance program selects cases, 10% of initially interpreted negative cases plus any gynecologic cytology on patients with a prior abnormal cervical cytology, or history of cervical epithelial cell abnormality. This quality assurance program averages 29% of cases, 4,045 of a total of 13,767, in 2008. Thirty-seven (0.9%) cases were detected in this rescreen (ASCUS, 16 cases; LGSIL, 13 cases; 1 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; 4 ASC-H; and 3 atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance). Eliminating ASCUS cases, eight significant cases were detected, with an error rate of 0.2%. In this cytology laboratory, the rapid prescreen did not prove as reliable as routine quality assurance program for cervical cytology cases.

Assuring the quality of quality assurance: seeding abnormal slides into the negative Papanicolaou smears that will be rapid rescreened

BACKGROUND

Rapid rescreening (RR) of negative Papanicolaou smears (PS) is used in many countries as a quality-assurance measure. Seeding of abnormal slides has been suggested as a way to increase the sensitivity of this procedure. Since 2004, the authors have carried out RR with seeding before issuing reports. In this article, they describe their experience.

METHODS

Abnormal seeds were sourced from the previous day's high-grade cases, both squamous and glandular. Slides were evaluated for the 'degree of difficulty' (which was defined as the number of fields required to find (fields-to-find [FTF]) the abnormality), relabeled, and redotted to make them indistinguishable from the routine RR work. The number of seeds found/missed, the identity of the screener, the type of seeded abnormality, the degree of difficulty of the seed, and the mapping technique used all were recorded. The cytologists also were surveyed about their views on seeding.

RESULTS

Overall, 14.8% of 3082 high-grade seeds were missed during RR. There was no relation between seeds missed and the mapping technique used. However, the difficulty of the seed was relevant to the number missed and ranged from 8.3% when the FTF was <5 to 36% when the FTF was >10 (P = .000). The difference between intraepithelial seeds and invasive seeds was significant for squamous seeds (P = .031) but not for glandular seeds. Glandular seeds also were more likely to be missed than squamous seeds (23.1% vs 14.3%; P = .002). Most cytologists believed that seeding was a good idea and that seeds increased their level of vigilance.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' experience demonstrated that routine seeding is practicable for both conventional and liquid-based slides. With the advent of the human papillomavirus vaccine, abnormalities will become rarer, and seeding will be necessary to maintain the alertness of cytologists.

Rapid cervicovaginal smear screening: method of quality control and assessing individual cytotechnologist performance

AIM

To validate the method of rapid screening (RS) in the detection of cervical lesions and false-negative results as well as in quality control of cytotechnologist performance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The RS method was validated on Papanicolaou-stained and initially conventionally analysed vaginal, cervical and endocervical (VCE) smears collected in an opportunistic programme for the detection of cervical carcinoma. The study included 3680 VCE smears from the Department of Gynaecologic Cytology, University Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Zagreb University Hospital Center, Zagreb and from the Department of Clinical Cytology, Osijek University Hospital, Osijek. Histologically verified abnormal findings accounted for 10% of the study samples. Thirteen cytotechnologists, with no previous experience in RS, performed the test. Each slide was examined using the 'step' technique for 1.5 minutes, the findings were classified as negative or abnormal, and the abnormal ones were also classified according to differential cytological diagnosis. The results were compared with those obtained on initial screening. Abnormal findings from a group of initially negative findings were reanalysed using conventional methods to make definitive cytological diagnosis.

RESULTS

RS yielded a sensitivity of 83.7%, specificity of 93.7%, positive predictive value of 62.4%, negative predictive value of 97.9% and diagnostic accuracy of 92.6%. Relative to the initial abnormal differential cytological diagnosis, the diagnostic value of RS increased with lesion severity [54.8%, 68.0% and 91.3% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I, CIN II and CIN III respectively]. RS detected 38 additional positive findings; 94.2% of these were atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)/abnormal glandular cells undetermined significance (AGUS) and CIN I. The rate of additional positive findings was 1.14% (38/3135). The false-negative rate of initial screening was 9.4% (38/406), and individual cytotechnologist sensitivity was 60.0-100.0%.

CONCLUSION

RS could be introduced as an efficient method of quality control to improve the sensitivity of cytological screening as well as for quality control of cytotechnologist performance.