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
© 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.