Objectives: We aimed to analyze the false-negative (FN) liquid-based cytology diagnoses from the 5 years preceding all the 2013 histologically proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2-3 and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and to propose corrective actions. Study Design: This was a retrospective, blinded rescreening (‘5-year look-back') of liquid-based cytology samples with negative categorizations, which occurred before histologically proven CIN2-3 and SCC. Results: The FN rate was 7.8% (21/256 samples preceding CIN2-3 and 0/13 samples preceding SCC). Slides confirmed as ‘negative', ‘interpretation error' and ‘screening error', respectively, were 3.3% (9/269), 2.6% (7/269) and 1.9% (5/269). In 9/12 cases, error was associated with small atypical cells. In 7/12 cases, these diagnostic cells were less than 5/10 HPF. Inflammation and prominent reactive changes were present in 5/12 cases. Five patients had a positive clinical history. In 2 cases, there were multiple-cell-layer artifacts. Dense groups of small blue atypical cells were missed in 2 other cases. Dotting was imprecise in 6/7 samples. Conclusion: Considering the above results, we specifically reoriented our continuous education activities, focusing rapid rescreening on scanty, isolated, small, atypical cells and dense cell groups. Prior to final diagnosis, pathologists should systematically review the entire surface of the dotted slides, with special attention being devoted to slides with multiple cell layers and tridimensional groups.

Keywords:
Cervical cytology, SurePath, Cytological-histological correlations, False-negative diagnoses
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
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.