Rapid pre-screening (RPS) is a useful tool to measure and improve performance in the cytology laboratory. Whether RPS is more or less effective in liquid-based cytology than in conventional smears is unknown. We compared the estimated sensitivity in a laboratory of 11 cytotechnologists which converted from conventional smears to SurePath™ (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, N.J., USA) liquid based cytology. In the 9 months prior to conversion, 23,286 smears were screened compared with 30,610 smears in the 12 months immediately after conversion. The estimated sensitivity of rapid pre-screening for 90 s improved significantly with liquid based cytology for all abnormalities (58.7 vs. 68.7%, p < 0.001), atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance + low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion (52.6 vs. 63.1%, p < 0.001), and high-grade squamous intra-epithelial alone (76.2 vs. 85%, p < 0.001). Histologic follow up for 156 cases identified by rapid pre-screening of SurePath slides showed 32 (21%) cases of CIN1 or greater and 18 cases (12%) with CIN3 or worse. We conclude that rapid pre-screening is significantly more sensitive in liquid-based cytology compared with conventional smears, and detects significant lesions that are missed by routine screening.

Keywords:
Estimated sensitivity, Gynecological cytology, Liquid based cytology, Rapid pre-screening, Routine screening
1.
Dudding N, Hewer EM, Lancucki L, Rice S: Rapid screening: a comparative study. Cytopathology 2001;12:235–248.
2.
Dudding N: Rapid rescreen: a viable alternative to 1:10? Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:219–221.
3.
Dudding N: Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control. Cytopathology 1998;6:95–99.
4.
Renshaw AA, Cronin JA, Minter LJ, Whitman T, Jiroutek M, Cibas ES: Performance characteristics of rapid (30 s) prescreening: implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:517–522.
5.
Brooke D, Dudding N, Sutton J: Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice? Cytopathology 2002;13:191–199.
6.
Smith J, Nicholas D, Bod K, Deacon-Smith R: Rapid pre-screening: a validated quality assurance measure in cervical cytology. Cytopathology 2003;14:275–280.
7.
Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M: Measuring the significance of workload on the performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer Cytopathol 2008;114:149–154.
8.
Djemli A, Khetani K, Auger M: Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy. Cancer 2006;108:21–26.
9.
Djemli A, Khetani K, Case B, Auger M: Correlation of cytotechnologists’ parameters with their performance in rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears. Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:306–310.
10.
Tavares SBN, Sousa NLA, Manrique C, Albuquerque ZBP, 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 Cytopathol 2008;114:165–170.
11.
Tavares SB, de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG: Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening program. Cytopathology 2008;19:254–259.
12.
Brimo F, Renshaw AA, Deschenes M, Charbonneau M, Auger M: Improvement in routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time: a study using rapid pre- screening. Cancer Cytopathol 2009;117:311–317.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.