Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 100% rapid review (100%-RR) as an effective tool for internal quality control (IQC) in gynecological cytopathology services. Study Design: A total of 8,677 swabs were analyzed; the negative results were submitted to 100%-RR. Divergent cases were discussed in a consensus meeting to reach a conclusion on the final diagnosis. The data were entered into SAS statistical software, and the agreement of the 100%-RR results with the final diagnosis was tested with the weighted kappa statistic. Results: Of the 8,155 smears characterized as negative, 255 (3.13%) were abnormal smears, and 552 (6.77%) unsatisfactory smears were deemed negative. Regarding the results on the 8,155 smears subjected to 100%-RR when compared with the final diagnosis, there was agreement in 7,063 (86.60%) of them, and there were 1,092 (13.40%) discordant results (65.6%, unsatisfactory; 5.47%, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US]). The κ index had an agreement of 0.867, with κ = 0.734 (p < 0.0001). Compared with the final diagnosis, the sensitivity of 100%-RR was 99.91% and its specificity was 99.4% for severe abnormalities. The sensitivity for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions was 88.2%, with a specificity of 100.00%. For abnormalities considered borderline, such as ASC-US, the sensitivity was 94.50% and the specificity was 99.5%. Conclusion: The 100%-RR was considered efficient when used as an IQC method.

1.
Elmajjaoui S, Ismaili N, El Kacemi H, Kebdani T, Sifat H, Benjaafar N: Epidemiology and outcome of cervical cancer in National Institute of Morocco. BMC Womens Health 2016;16:62.
2.
Samson KK, Haynatzki G, Soliman AS, Valerianova Z: Temporal changes in the cervical cancer burden in Bulgaria: implications for Eastern European countries going through transition. Cancer Epidemiol 2016;44:154-160.
3.
Derchain S, Teixeira JC, Zeferino LC: Organized, population-based cervical cancer screening program: it would be a good time for Brazil now. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2016;38:161-163.
4.
Basu P, Nessa A, Majid M, Rahman JN, Ahmed T: Evaluation of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme of Bangladesh and the formulation of quality assurance guidelines. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2010;36:131-134.
5.
Landy R, Castanon A, Hamilton W, Lim AW, Dudding N, Hollingworth A, Sasieni PD: Evaluating cytology for the detection of invasive cervical cancer. Cytopathology 2016;27:201-209.
6.
Yunes-Díaz E, Ruiz PA, Lazcano-Ponce E: Assessment of the validity and reproducibility of the Pap smear in Mexico: necessity of a paradigm shift. Arch Med Res 2015;46:310-316.
7.
Kirschner B, Poll S, Rygaard C, Wåhlin A, Junge J: Screening history in women with cervical cancer in a Danish population-based screening program. Gynecol Oncol 2011;120:68-72.
8.
Tavares SB, de Souza NL, Manrique EJ, Azara CZ, da Silveira EA, Amaral RG: Internal quality control for cervical cytopathology: comparison of potential false-negatives detected at rapid prescreening and at 100% rapid review. Acta Cytol 2014;58:439-445.
9.
Confortini M, Di Stefano C, Biggeri A, Bulgaresi P, Di Claudio G, Grisotto L, Maddau C, Matucci M, Petreschi C, Troni GM, Turco P, Foxi P: Daily peer review of abnormal cervical smears in the assessment of individual practice as an additional method of internal quality control. Cytopathology 2016;27:35-42.
10.
Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde: Vigitel Brasil 2012: vigilância de fatores de risco e proteção para doenças crônicas por inquérito telefônico. Brasília, Ministério da Saúde, 2013.
11.
Ministério da Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva: Nomenclatura brasileira para laudos citopatológicos cervicais, ed 3. Rio de Janeiro, INCA, 2012. http://www1.inca.gov.br/inca/Arquivos/nomenclatura_laudo_cervical.pdf (cited March 17, 2014).
12.
Azara CZ, Manrique EJ, Alves de Souza NL, Rodrigues AR, Tavares SB, Amaral RG: External quality control of cervical cytopathology: interlaboratory variability. Acta Cytol 2013;57:585-590.
13.
Cormier K, Schaaf M, Hamilton S, Tickman RJ, Perez-Reyes N, Sturgis CD: NILM Pap slides from women 30 years of age and older with positive high-risk HPV DNA. Focused rescreening prior to report issuance, an enhanced quality control measure. Am J Clin Pathol 2014;141:494-500.
14.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC: The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. “The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.” (after a quotation from Mark Twain). Acta Cytol 2015;59:121-132.
15.
Mattosinho de Castro Ferraz Mda G, Dall' Agnol M, di Loreto C, Pirani WM, Utagawa ML, Pereira SMM, Sakai YI, Feres CL, Shih LWS, Yamamoto LS, Rodrigues ROL, Shirata N, 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.
16.
da Fonseca AJ, Murari RS, Moraes IS, Rocha RF, Ferreira LC: Validity of cervicovaginal cytology in a Brazilian State with high incidence rate of cervical cancer (in Portuguese). Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014;36:347-352.
17.
Tavares SB, Alves de Souza 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 Cytophatol 2008;114:165-170.
18.
Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M: Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer Cytopathol 2008;114:149-154.
19.
Tavares SB, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB, 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.
20.
Auger M: Rapid prescreening in gynecologic cytology: a more efficient quality assurance method. Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:357-360.
21.
Manrique EJ, Alves Souza NL, Tavares SB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG: Performance of the 100% rapid review methodology on cervix Pap smears with and without clinical information (in Portuguese). Rev Inst Adolfo Lutz 2012;71:172-177.
22.
Currens HS, Nejkauf K, Wagner L, Raab SS: Effectiveness of rapid prescreening and 10% rescreening in liquid-based Papanicolaou testing. Am J Clin Pathol 2012;137:150-155.
23.
Zhao L, Wentzensen N, Zhang RR, Dunn ST, Gold MA, Wang SS, Schiffman M, Walker JL, Zuna RE: Factors associated with reduced accuracy in Papanicolaou tests for patients with invasive cervical cancer. Cancer Cytopathol 2014;122:694-701.
24.
Baruch OJ, Sotelo-Regil HR, Flores HL, Ibarra RM, Martínez BB: Concordancia interobservador, en citología cervical, en el Instituto Nacional de Cancerología. Patol Rev Latinoam 2012;50;253-256.
25.
Branca M, Longatto-Filho A: Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2015;59:361-369.
26.
Frable WJ, Pedigo MA, Powers CN, Yarrell C, Ortiz B, Clark ME, Ebron T: Rapid prescreen of cervical liquid-based cytology preparations: results of a study in an academic medical center. Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:691-697.
27.
Cobucci RNO, Maisonnette MJAS, Macêdo EJS, Santos Filho FC, Rodovalho PEF, Nóbrega MM, Gonçalves AKS: Pap test accuracy and severity of squamous intraepithelial lesion. Indian J Cancer 2016;53:74-76.
28.
Feoli F, Renard C, Abouyahia M, De Wind R, Larsimont D, Arbyn M: Retrospective rescreening of negative cervical cytology samples preceding histologically proven CIN2-3 and squamous cell carcinoma: an educational opportunity to understand and prevent laboratory errors. Acta Cytol 2015;59:265-272.
29.
Djemli A, Khetani K, Auger M: Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy. Cancer 2006;108:21-26.
30.
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.
31.
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.
32.
Hui Y, Hansen K, Murthy J, Chau D, Sung CJ, Quddus MR: Relevance of the Pap test: a report of HPV-DNA test-negative high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the female lower genital tract. Acta Cytol 2016;60:445-450.
33.
Hopenhayn C, Christian A, Christian WJ, Watson M, Unger ER, Lynch CF, Peters ES, Wilkinson EJ, Huang Y, Copeland G, Cozen W, Saber MS, Goodman MT, Hernandez BY, Steinau M, Lyu C, Tucker TT, Saraiya M: Prevalence of human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancers from 7 US cancer registries before vaccine introduction. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2014;18:182-189.
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.