IMPROVING ACCURACY IN GYNECOLOGIC CYTOLOGY - RESULTS OF THE COLLEGE-OF-AMERICAN-PATHOLOGISTS INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM IN CERVICOVAGINAL CYTOLOGY

Citation
Dd. Davey et al., IMPROVING ACCURACY IN GYNECOLOGIC CYTOLOGY - RESULTS OF THE COLLEGE-OF-AMERICAN-PATHOLOGISTS INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON PROGRAM IN CERVICOVAGINAL CYTOLOGY, Archives of pathology and laboratory medicine, 117(12), 1993, pp. 1193-1198
Citations number
27
Categorie Soggetti
Pathology,"Medical Laboratory Technology","Medicine, Research & Experimental
Journal title
Archives of pathology and laboratory medicine
ISSN journal
00039985 → ACNP
Volume
117
Issue
12
Year of publication
1993
Pages
1193 - 1198
Database
ISI
SICI code
0003-9985(1993)117:12<1193:IAIGC->2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
The College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Progra m in Cervicovaginal Cytology (PAP) is a quarterly mailed glass-slide q uality improvement program. This growing program started as a pilot in 1989 with 207 laboratories. In 1991, 605 laboratories participated. T he diagnostic menu is modified from the Bethesda System and divides re ferenced slides into a negative series (normal, infectious, and reacti ve) and a positive series of epithelial lesions. A facsimile option fa cilitates immediate educational feedback. The 1989 through 1991 major discrepancy rate averaged 5%. The consensus laboratory response had hi gher concordance than either pathologist or cytotechnologist responses . Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion was the leading cause of f alse-negative participant response, while reactive/reparative change w as the leading cause of false-positive response. Pathologist false-neg ative and false-positive responses from group or large case-volume pra ctices were significantly lower than those from solo or small case-vol ume practices. Cytotechnologists in multiple-technologist or large-vol ume laboratories had significantly lower false-negative responses than solo technologists or those in low case-volume laboratories, but fals e-positive rates did not differ. Experienced participants had fewer ma jor discrepancies. The interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicova ginal Cytology illustrates the feasibility of a large, mailed glass-sl ide program, and offers laboratories a continuous method for monitorin g and improving performance in gynecologic cytology.