Objective: To evaluate the performance of Papanicolaou smear screening in Thailand at the national level, and to propose recommendations for continuing quality control. Study Design: This study was conducted by The Thai Society of Cytology and involved 124 laboratories in 76 provinces during 2010-2014. Random sampling suggested recalling of 10% of slides defined as negative at routine screenings (10% random rescreening [R10] model) directly from the reading unit. Results: Out of 330,075 smears covered by the rescreening project throughout its 5-year duration, the rates of abnormal, unsatisfactory, and normal results were 0.63, 1.82, and 97.55%, respectively. Abnormal findings were largely represented by ASC-US (54%) and L-SIL (21%). The average false-negative rate (FNR) measured at the level of L-SIL and higher was 13.8%. Conclusion: The national project was developed to address the accuracy of cervical cancer screening and to promote internal quality assurance based on the R10, on-site surveys, and education. The major output parameters of this study (FNR and number and distribution of abnormal cases on rescreening) improved significantly in the main phase of the project (2012-2014), after revising substantial logistics issues encountered during the first 2 years of this study. This project provided objective measurable evidence related to the quality of cytology-based cervical cancer screening in Thailand.

1.
Sriamporn S, Khuhaprema T, Parkin M: Cervical cancer screening in Thailand: an overview. J Med Screen 2006;13(suppl 1):S39-S43.
2.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F: GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0: Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide - IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, IARC, 2016.
3.
Imsamran W, Chaiwerawattana A, Wiangnon S, Pongnikorn D, Suwanrungrung K, Sangrajrang S, Buasom R: Cancer in Thailand: 2010-2012. Bangkok, New Thammada Press, 2015, vol 8.
4.
Wilailak S, Lertchaipattanakul N: The epidemiologic status of gynecologic cancer in Thailand. J Gynecol Oncol 2016;27:e65.
5.
Gustafsson L, Ponten J, Zack M, Adami HO: International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control 1997;8:755-763.
6.
Swangvaree SS, Kongkaew P, Rugsuj P, Saruk O: Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection and cytologic results in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010;11:1465-1468.
7.
Kasinpila C, Promthet S, Vatanasapt P, Sasieni P, Parkin DM: Evaluation of the nationwide cervical screening programme in Thailand: a case-control study. J Med Screen 2011;18:147-153.
8.
Khuhaprema T, Attasara P, Srivatanakul P, Sangrajrang S, Muwonge R, Sauvaget C, Sankaranarayanan R: Organization and evolution of organized cervical cytology screening in Thailand. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;118:107-111.
9.
Brainard JA, Birdsong GG, Elsheikh TM, Hartley DA, Naik K, Neal MH, Souers RJ, Henry MR: Prospective and retrospective review of gynecologic cytopathology: findings from the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference working group 2. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2013;137:175-182.
10.
Faraker CA, Boxer ME: Rapid review (partial rescreening) of cervical cytology: four years experience and quality assurance implications. J Clin Pathol 1996;49:587-591.
11.
Krieger P, Naryshkin S: Random rescreening of cytologic smears: a practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1994;38:291-298.
12.
Lee BC, Lam SY, Walker T: Comparison of false negative rates between 100% rapid review and 10% random full rescreening as internal quality control methods in cervical cytology screening. Acta Cytol 2009;53:271-276.
13.
From the Centers for Disease Control: regulations for implementing Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 - a summary. JAMA 1992;267:1725-1727, 1731-1724.
14.
Brooke D, Dudding N, Sutton J: Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice? Cytopathology 2002;13:191-199.
15.
Renshaw AA: A practical problem with calculating the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone. Cancer 1999;87:351-353.
16.
Renshaw AA: Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control: when bad data is worse than no data or what works, what doesn't, and why. Clin Lab Med 2003;23:695-708.
17.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N, Forum Group M, Bethesda W: The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
18.
Renshaw AA, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Cibas ES: A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process. Cancer 1997;81:272-276.
19.
Naryshkin S: The false-negative fraction for Papanicolaou smears: how often are “abnormal” smears not detected by a “standard” screening cytologist? Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:270-272.
20.
Wilbur DC: False negatives in focused rescreening of Papanicolaou smears: how frequently are “abnormal” cells detected in retrospective review of smears preceding cancer or high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia? Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:273-276.
21.
Lonnberg S, Anttila A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Kujari H, Melkko J, Granroth G, Vornanen M, Pietilainen T, Sankila A, Arola J, Luostarinen T, Nieminen P: Low proportion of false-negative smears in the Finnish program for cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:381-387.
22.
Koss LG: Cervical (Pap) smear: new directions. Cancer 1993;71:1406-1412.
23.
Raab SS: Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in Pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:127-133.
24.
Branca M, Longatto-Filho A: A Manual for Cervical Cancer Screening and Control: Principles, Practice and New Perspectives. Waltham, Nova Biomedical, 2013.
25.
Branca M, Longatto-Filho A: Recommendations on quality control and quality assurance in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2015;59:361-369.
26.
Maza M, Alfaro K, Garai J, Velado MM, Gage JC, Castle PE, Felix J, Luciani S, Campos N, Kim J, Masch R, Cremer M: Cervical Cancer Prevention in El Salvador (CAPE): an HPV testing-based demonstration project - changing the secondary prevention paradigm in a lower middle-income country. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2017;20:58-61.
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.