Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 1996
Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Rescreening of 8096 previous cases for current low-grade and indeterminate-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion diagnoses--a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 323 laboratories.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jones B A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To quantitate, characterize, and analyze errors identified in the rescreening of previous gynecologic cytology specimens with original diagnoses of within normal limits or benign cellular changes for current cases diagnosed as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or squamous intraepithelial lesion of indeterminate grade.
DESIGN AND SETTING: College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory quality improvement study in 323 laboratories.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: False-negative rate in cases rescreened as a result of a current cytologic diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or squamous intraepithelial lesion of indeterminate grade.
RESULTS: A total of 8096 smears performed within the 5 years preceding the current examination were rescreened. Of the rescreened cases, 284 (3.5%) were reclassified as a squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma, 474 (5.9%) as atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance, 7 (0.09%) as atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance or glandular intraepithelial lesion, and 39 (0.5%) as unsatisfactory. Ninety-three percent (261/280) of all false-negative cases were identified in cases from the previous 3 years.
CONCLUSION: Rescreening archival cytology cases previously diagnosed as within normal limits or benign cellular changes for current cases diagnosed as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or squamous intraepithelial lesion of indeterminate grade will identify screening and diagnostic errors. This may be a useful quality improvement monitor in many laboratories.
DESIGN AND SETTING: College of American Pathologists Q-Probes laboratory quality improvement study in 323 laboratories.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: False-negative rate in cases rescreened as a result of a current cytologic diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or squamous intraepithelial lesion of indeterminate grade.
RESULTS: A total of 8096 smears performed within the 5 years preceding the current examination were rescreened. Of the rescreened cases, 284 (3.5%) were reclassified as a squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma, 474 (5.9%) as atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance, 7 (0.09%) as atypical glandular cells of uncertain significance or glandular intraepithelial lesion, and 39 (0.5%) as unsatisfactory. Ninety-three percent (261/280) of all false-negative cases were identified in cases from the previous 3 years.
CONCLUSION: Rescreening archival cytology cases previously diagnosed as within normal limits or benign cellular changes for current cases diagnosed as low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or squamous intraepithelial lesion of indeterminate grade will identify screening and diagnostic errors. This may be a useful quality improvement monitor in many laboratories.