Objective: To evaluate the performance of rapid prescreening (RPS) and 100% rapid review (RR-100%) as internal quality control (IQC) methods assessed by outcome at colposcopy, histopathology and repeat cytopathology for cases with false-negative results on cervical cytopathology at routine screening (RS). Study Design: Out of 12,208 cytology smears analyzed, 900 were abnormal. Of these, 656 were identified at RS, and 244 were false-negative, with 90.2% identified at RPS and 57.4% at RR-100%. Of the 900 abnormal cases, 436 were submitted for additional testing. Results: Of the 244 women with cytopathological abnormalities identified only by the IQC methods, 114 had supplementary examinations: 35 were submitted for colposcopy, 22 for biopsy and 99 for repeat cytopathology. The sensitivity of RPS for the detection of abnormalities identified on colposcopy, histopathology and repeat cytopathology was 87.5% (95% CI 67.6-97.3), 82.4% (95% CI 56.6-96.2) and 95.7% (95% CI 85.2-99.5), respectively. The sensitivity of RR-100% was 54.2% (95% CI 32.8-74.4), 52.9% (95% CI 27.8-77.0) and 47.8% (95% CI 32.9-63.1), respectively. RPS was more sensitive than RR-100% when compared to the findings on colposcopy (p = 0.011) and repeat cytopathology (p = 0.000). When compared to colposcopy, histopathology and repeat cytopathology, the sensitivity of RS was 83.2% (95% CI 76.1-88.9), 85.7% (95% CI 78.1-91.5) and 73.3% (95% CI 66.0-79.7), respectively. Conclusion: RPS performed better than RR-100% when compared to the results of colposcopy and repeat cytopathology.

Keywords:
Rapid prescreening, Rapid review, Routine screening, Quality control, Follow-up, Uterine cervical cytology
1.
Mitchell H, Medley G: Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995;6:368-375.
2.
O'Sullivan JP, A'Hern RP, Chapman PA, Jenkins l, Smith R, al-Nafussi A, Brett MT, Herbert A, McKean ME, Waddell CA: A case-control study of true-positive versus false-negative cervical smears in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III. Cytopathology 1998;9:155-161.
3.
Ferraz MG, Dall Agnol M, Di Loreto C, Pirani WM, Utagawa ML, Pereira SM, Sakai YI, Feres CL, Shih LW, Yamamoto LS, Rodrigues RO, Shirata NK, Longatto Filho A: 100% rapid rescreening for quality assurance in a quality control program in a public health cytologic laboratory. Acta Cytol 2005;49:639-643.
4.
Kirschner B, Poll S, Rygaard C, Wahlin A, Junge J: Screening history in women with cervical cancer in a Danish population-based screening program. Gynecol Oncol 2011;120:68-72.
5.
Centers for Disease Control: Regulations for Implementing Clinical Laboratory Improvement. Amendments of 1988: a summary. JAMA 1992;267:1725-1727, 1731-1734.
6.
Ministério da Saúde, Brasil: Manual Técnico para Laboratórios: prevenção do câncer do colo do útero. Brasília, 2002.
7.
Amaral RG, Zeferino LC, Hardy E, Westin MC, Martinez EZ, Montemor EB: Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening versus 10% random rescreening. Acta Cytol 2005;49:244-248.
8.
Pajtler M, Audy-Jurković S, Skopljanac-Macina L, Antulov J, Barisić A, Milicić-Juhas V: Rapid cervicovaginal smear screening: method of quality control and assessing individual cytotechnologist performance. Cytopathology 2006;17:121-126.
9.
Manrique EJ, Amaral RG, Souza NL, Tavares SB, Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC: Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure. Cytopathology 2006;17:116-120.
10.
Tavares SB, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB, 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 2008;114:165-170.
11.
Baker A, Melcher DH: Rapid cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology 1991;2:299-301.
12.
Lemay C, Meisels A: 100% rapid (partial) rescreening for quality assurance. Acta Cytol 1999;43:86-88.
13.
Dudding N: Rapid rescreen: a viable alternative to 1:10? Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:219-221.
14.
Sood N, Singh V: Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of cervical smears. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2009;52:495-497.
15.
Manrique EJ, Souza NL, Tavares SB, Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG: Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens. Cytopathology 2011;22:195-201.
16.
Brimo F, Renshaw AA, Deschenes M, Charbonneau M, Auger M: Improvement in the routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer Cytopathol 2009;117:311-317.
17.
Tavares SBN, de Sousa NLA, Manrique EJC, de Albuquerque ZBP, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG: Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears: a study using rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods. Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:367-376.
18.
Walker P, de Palo G., Barrasso R Campion M, Girardi F, Jakob C, Roy M: International terminology of colposcopy: an updated report from the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:175-177.
19.
Scully RE, Bonfiglio TA, Kurman RI, Silverberg SG, Wilkins EJ: Histological typing of female genital tract tumors; in World Health Organization: International Histological Classification of Tumors, ed 2. Berlin, Springer, 1994.
20.
Solomon D, Nayar R: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology, ed 1. New York, Springer, 2004, p 191.
21.
Epidemiology Program Office Division of Public Health Surveillance and Informatics: Epi Info TM version 3.2.2 (2005). http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo (accessed 4 March 4 2006).
22.
STATA: Statistical software release 8.0. College Stations, Stata Corporation, 2003.
23.
Coppelson LW, Brown B: Estimation of the screening error rate from the observed detection rates in repeated cervical cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974;119:953-958.
24.
Lapin GA, Derchain SFM, Tambascia J: Comparação entre a colpocitologia oncológica de encaminhamento e a da gravidade das lesões cervicais intra-epiteliais. Rev Saúde Pública 2000;34:120-125.
25.
Katz LMC, Souza ASR, Fittipaldi SO, Santos GM, Amorim MMR: Concordância entre citologia, colposcopia e histopatologia cervical. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2010;32:368-373.
26.
Placidi A, Manca G, Mania E, Arbyn M: Rapid pre-screening of Pap smears in quality control: an Italian experience. Cytopathology 2004;15:121-123.
27.
Dudding N, Renshaw AA, Ellis K: Rapid pre-screening is more sensitive in liquid-based cytology than in conventional smears. Acta Cytol 2011;55:54-56.
28.
Wilson NJ, Molyneux AJ: Rapid review in cervical cytology: a retrospective review of cases detected on rapid review within a DGH cytology department and subsequent outcome. Cytopathology 2004;15:93-96.
29.
Clarke J, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Roberts JM: Assuring the quality of quality assurance: seeding abnormal slides into the negative Papanicolaou smears that will be rapid rescreened. Cancer 2008;114:294-299.
30.
Michelow P, Mckee G, Hlongwane F: Rapid rescreening of cervical smears as quality control method in a high-risk population. Cytopathology 2006;17:110-115.
31.
Alves RR, Rabelo-Santos SH, Ribeiro AA, Carneiro MA, Ximenes Y, Tavares SB, Saddi V, Zeferino LC: Usefulness of repeat cytology at the time of first colposcopy. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:68-73.
32.
Di Loreto C, Maeda MYS, Utagawa A, Longatto Filho A, Alves VAF: Garantia de qualidade em citopatologia: aspectos da correlação cito-histopatológica. Rev Ass Med Brasil 1997;43:195-198.
33.
Anschau F, Goncalves MAG: Discordance between cytology and biopsy histology of the cervix: what to consider and what to do. Acta Cytol 2011;55:158-162.
34.
Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, Herrero R, Alfaro M, Bratti MC, Hildesheim A, Lorincz AT, Greenberg MD, Morales J, Schiffman M: Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening. Results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999;87:48-55.
35.
Friedell GH: Addendum; in Sommers SC (ed): Genital and Mammary Pathology Decennial. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1975, pp 49-53.
36.
Vooijs GP, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Poelevan de Berg M: The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;30:251-257.
37.
Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, Riffing-Kullamann B: The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Acta Cytol 1992;35:8-4.
38.
Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Lehmann M, Ritter J, Phillippe E: Cervical cancer screening with cervicography and cytology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995;58:33-39.
39.
Evaluation of Cervical Cytology. Rockville, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999.
40.
Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R: Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83:439-444.
41.
Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, Cremoux P: Cross-sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003;326:733.
42.
Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM: Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:137-144.
43.
Halford JA, Wright RG, Ditchmen EJ: Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET testing system. Acta Cytol 1997;41:79-81.
44.
Ministério da Saúde, Brasil; Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde; Instituto Nacional de Câncer; Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância de Câncer: Nomenclatura brasileira para laudos cervicais e condutas preconizadas: recomendações para profissionais de saúde, ed 2. Rio de Janeiro, INCA, 2006, p 56.
45.
McCord ML, Stovall TG, Summitt RL, Ling FW: Discrepancy of cervical cytology and colposcopic biopsy: is cervical conization necessary? Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:715-719.
46.
Anderson MB, Jones BA: False-positive cervicovaginal cytology. A follow-up study. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1697-1700.
47.
Ministério da Saúde, Brasil; Instituto Nacional do Câncer; Coordenação Geral de Ações Estratégicas; Divisão de Apoio à Rede de Atenção Oncológica: Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero, ed 1. Rio de Janeiro, INCA, 2011, p 104.
48.
Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES: Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology. Experience with 1,582 paired cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:32-34.
49.
Baker A, Melcher D, Smith R: Role of re-screening of cervical smears in internal quality control. Jour Clin Pathol 1995;48:1002-1004.
50.
Lazcano-Ponce EC, Rascon-Pacheco RA, Lozano-Ascencio R, Velasco-Mondragon HE: Mortality from cervical carcinoma in Mexico: impact of screening, 1980-1990. Acta Cytol 1996;40:506-512.
51.
Cancer of the cervix: death by incompetence (editorial). Lancet 1985;2:363-364.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
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.