Objective: We aimed to evaluate the impact of implementing 100% rapid review (100% RR) as a quality control tool in cervical smear cytology. Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted in which cytology findings, false-negative results, and quality indicators were evaluated. The variables were analyzed in 2004, the year in which 100% RR was implemented, and again in 2013, i.e., 10 years on. Results: Detection of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) increased from 0.90% in 2004 to 2.47% in 2013 by routine screening. Detection of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) increased from 13.33% in 2004 to 36.27% in 2013 by 100% RR. Detection of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) increased from 0.64% in 2004 to 4.29% in 2013 by routine screening, and increased from 0% in 2004 to 19.61% in 2013 by 100% RR. There was a significant increase (p = 0.00001) in the identification of false-negative results of ASC-US, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, ASC-H, HSIL, and atypical glandular cells. All quality indicators had increased in 2013 when compared to 2004 results. Conclusions: Ten years after the implementation of the 100% RR method, improvements were found in the detection of atypia and precursor lesions and in quality indicators.

Keywords:
Cervical cancer, Cervical smears, Screening, Quality control
1.
Karimi-Zarchi M, Peighmbari F, Karimi N, Rohi M, Chiti Z: A comparison of 3 ways of conventional Pap smear, liquid based cytology and colposcopy vs. cervical biopsy for early diagnosis of premalignant lesions or cervical cancer in women with abnormal conventional Pap test. Int J Biomed Sci 2013; 9: 205–210.
2.
Zola P, Fuso L, Mazzola S, et al: Follow-up strategies in gynecological oncology: searching appropriateness. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007; 17: 1186–1193.
3.
Gupta N, John D, Dudding N, Crossley J, Smith JH: Factors contributing to false-negative and potential false-negative cytology reports in SurePathTM liquid-based cervical cytology. Cytopathology 2013; 24: 39–43.
4.
Walavalkar V, Fischer AH, Owens CL: Significance of cytopathologist’s review of Pap tests screened as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy that are positive for high-risk human papillomavirus. J Am Soc Cytopathol 2015; 4: 190–194.
5.
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 min according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens. Cytopathology 2011; 22: 195–201.
6.
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.
7.
Auger M: Rapid prescreening in gynecologic cytology: a more efficient quality assurance method. Cancer Cytopathol 2011; 119: 357–360.
8.
Araujo Jr ML, Santana DA, Almeida LB, Quintana SB, Silva GR, Fonseca RC: Quality in cytopathology: an analysis of the internal quality monitoring indicators of the Instituto Nacional de Câncer. J Bras Patol Med Lab 2015; 51: 102–107.
9.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde; Instituto Nacional do Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva; Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância; Divisão de Detecção Precoce e Apoio à Organização de Rede: Manual de gestão da qualidade para laboratório de citopatologia. Rio de Janeiro, INCA, 2016.
10.
Brasil. Ministério da Saúde: Sistema de Informação do câncer do colo do útero e Sistema de Informação do câncer de mama, 2015. http://w3.datasus.gov.br/siscam/index.php?area=0401 (accessed November 21, 2015).
11.
Utagawa ML, Shirata NK, Ferraz MG, Loreto C, Dall’ Agnol M, Longatto-Filho A: Performance of 3 methods for quality control for gynecologic cytology diagnoses. Acta Cytol 2008; 52: 439–444.
12.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC: The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes, ed 3. Cham, Springer, 2015.
13.
Rao AC, Nayal B, Patil RG: Comparison of RR100, R10 and morphologic guided list criteria in rescreening of 4000 cervical smears – an experience in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Sci Res Publ 2015; 5: 1–6.
14.
Montemor EB, Roteli-Martins CM, Zeferino LC, et al: Whole, Turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: is there any difference in performance? Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 57–60.
15.
Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM: Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: a review. Diagn Cytopathol 2011; 39: 832–836.
16.
Chebib I, Rao RA, Wilbur DC, Tambouret RH: Using the ASC/SIL ratio, human papillomavirus, and interobserver variability to assess and monitor cytopathology fellow training performance. Cancer Cytopathol 2013; 121: 638–643.
17.
Catteau X, Simon P, Noël JC: Evaluation of the oncogenic human papillomavirus DNA test with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening and the importance of the ASC/SIL ratio: a Belgian study. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2014; 2014: 536495.
18.
Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Stver PE, Mody DR: Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004; 128: 1224–1229.
19.
Nygård JF, Skare GB, Thoresen SØ: The Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Norway, 1992–2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer. J Med Screen 2002; 9: 86–91.
20.
Costa RF, Longatto-Filho A, Pinheiro C, Zeferino LC, Fregnani JH: Historical analysis of the Brazilian Cervical Cancer Screening Program from 2006 to 2013: a time for reflection. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0138945.
21.
Amaral AF, Araújo ES, Magalhães JC, Silveira EA, Tavares SBN, Amaral RG: Impact of training about cervical cancer screening on health professionals working in basic health care units. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014; 36: 182–187.
22.
Ferreira TXAM, Tavares SBN, Rezende IR, Manrique EJC, Guimarães JV, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG: Capacitação do agente comunitário de saúde visando reorganização do rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero. Rev Aten Prim Saude 2013; 16: 75–82.
23.
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.
24.
Sundström K, Lu D, Elfström KM, Wang J, Andrae B, Dillner J, Sparén P: Follow-up of women with cervical cytological abnormalities showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a nationwide cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216: 48.e1–e15.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.