Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation
N. Izadi‐Mood, S. Sarmadi and S. Sanii Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation Objective: Frequent studies attest to the correlation of cytological interpretations with defined histopathological entities. Nevertheless, as part of quality control, cytology laborat...
Saved in:
Published in: | Cytopathology (Oxford) 2013-02, Vol.24 (1), p.33-38 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03 |
container_end_page | 38 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 33 |
container_title | Cytopathology (Oxford) |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Izadi-Mood, N. Sarmadi, S. Sanii, S. |
description | N. Izadi‐Mood, S. Sarmadi and S. Sanii
Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation
Objective: Frequent studies attest to the correlation of cytological interpretations with defined histopathological entities. Nevertheless, as part of quality control, cytology laboratories are required to compare Papanicolaou smear reports with those of cervical biopsies to search for discrepancies. We have attempted to determine and categorize the causes of existing discrepancies in our laboratory in order to clarify the source of errors.
Methods: We reviewed 670 cervical smears that were paired with subsequent punch biopsy or endocervical curettage samples, obtained within 2 months of the cytology, and found out that 60 smear‐biopsy pairs were discrepant regarding the diagnosis. These cases were categorized into four error groups after careful re‐evaluation of the original smear and biopsy slides.
Results: In 51 (85%) of 60 cervical smear‐biopsy pairs with reports that disagreed, the initial diagnoses of both cervical smear and biopsy were confirmed by the review opinion; in these cases, cytology and biopsy ‘sampling errors’ were responsible for 40 and 11 instances of discrepancy, respectively. Seven cases (11.1%) were discrepant due to ‘smear interpretation errors’ and consisted of five cases with initial under‐diagnosis and two cases with initial over‐diagnosis. One case (1.7%) was due to ‘screener error’. In another case, discordance was due to cervical ‘biopsy interpretation error’, with initial over‐diagnosis as squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Conclusion: In this retrospective study, we determined the causes of cytohistological discrepancies in cervical samples. The main explanation for discrepancy was ‘sampling error’. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00926.x |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1273779435</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1273779435</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEtPAyEUhYnR2Pr4C2aWbmbkUZghcWMabTU-E41xRRiGViodFKa18-9lWu1aNtxwzrn38gGQIJiheM5mGSKMpphAkmGIUAYhxyxb7YD-VtgFfcgpSymFeQ8chDCDEGGOyT7oYcQxp3nRBzdPC2lN0ybK1Y13NjF1orRfGuWWcmpqaRPVNs66aZuU7bp-N2H9YFQnOu-1lY1x9RHYm0gb9PHvfQheri6fh-P09mF0Pby4TdUAMpYOSo6R1BhRLkvNESGTqqgYi5shTDSlZUV1UbBBPokyz6HGlYo_0bykiCtIDsHppu-nd18LHRoxN0Fpa2Wt3SIIhHOS53xAaLQWG6vyLgSvJ-LTm7n0rUBQdCTFTHTARAdMdCTFmqRYxejJ75RFOdfVNviHLhrON4ZvY3X778Zi-PYcixhPN_FIU6-2cek_BIv7U_F6PxLw6Q5x9ojFmPwAd_-RJQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1273779435</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Izadi-Mood, N. ; Sarmadi, S. ; Sanii, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Izadi-Mood, N. ; Sarmadi, S. ; Sanii, S.</creatorcontrib><description>N. Izadi‐Mood, S. Sarmadi and S. Sanii
Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation
Objective: Frequent studies attest to the correlation of cytological interpretations with defined histopathological entities. Nevertheless, as part of quality control, cytology laboratories are required to compare Papanicolaou smear reports with those of cervical biopsies to search for discrepancies. We have attempted to determine and categorize the causes of existing discrepancies in our laboratory in order to clarify the source of errors.
Methods: We reviewed 670 cervical smears that were paired with subsequent punch biopsy or endocervical curettage samples, obtained within 2 months of the cytology, and found out that 60 smear‐biopsy pairs were discrepant regarding the diagnosis. These cases were categorized into four error groups after careful re‐evaluation of the original smear and biopsy slides.
Results: In 51 (85%) of 60 cervical smear‐biopsy pairs with reports that disagreed, the initial diagnoses of both cervical smear and biopsy were confirmed by the review opinion; in these cases, cytology and biopsy ‘sampling errors’ were responsible for 40 and 11 instances of discrepancy, respectively. Seven cases (11.1%) were discrepant due to ‘smear interpretation errors’ and consisted of five cases with initial under‐diagnosis and two cases with initial over‐diagnosis. One case (1.7%) was due to ‘screener error’. In another case, discordance was due to cervical ‘biopsy interpretation error’, with initial over‐diagnosis as squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Conclusion: In this retrospective study, we determined the causes of cytohistological discrepancies in cervical samples. The main explanation for discrepancy was ‘sampling error’.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0956-5507</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2303</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00926.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21929578</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>cervical biopsy ; Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis ; Cervix Uteri - pathology ; cytohistological correlation ; Early Detection of Cancer - methods ; Early Detection of Cancer - standards ; Female ; Humans ; interpretation error ; Neoplasm Grading - methods ; Neoplasms, Squamous Cell - diagnosis ; Observer Variation ; Pap smear ; Papanicolaou Test ; Quality Control ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; sampling error ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; squamous intraepithelial lesion ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Vaginal Smears - methods ; Vaginal Smears - standards</subject><ispartof>Cytopathology (Oxford), 2013-02, Vol.24 (1), p.33-38</ispartof><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929578$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Izadi-Mood, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarmadi, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanii, S.</creatorcontrib><title>Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation</title><title>Cytopathology (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Cytopathology</addtitle><description>N. Izadi‐Mood, S. Sarmadi and S. Sanii
Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation
Objective: Frequent studies attest to the correlation of cytological interpretations with defined histopathological entities. Nevertheless, as part of quality control, cytology laboratories are required to compare Papanicolaou smear reports with those of cervical biopsies to search for discrepancies. We have attempted to determine and categorize the causes of existing discrepancies in our laboratory in order to clarify the source of errors.
Methods: We reviewed 670 cervical smears that were paired with subsequent punch biopsy or endocervical curettage samples, obtained within 2 months of the cytology, and found out that 60 smear‐biopsy pairs were discrepant regarding the diagnosis. These cases were categorized into four error groups after careful re‐evaluation of the original smear and biopsy slides.
Results: In 51 (85%) of 60 cervical smear‐biopsy pairs with reports that disagreed, the initial diagnoses of both cervical smear and biopsy were confirmed by the review opinion; in these cases, cytology and biopsy ‘sampling errors’ were responsible for 40 and 11 instances of discrepancy, respectively. Seven cases (11.1%) were discrepant due to ‘smear interpretation errors’ and consisted of five cases with initial under‐diagnosis and two cases with initial over‐diagnosis. One case (1.7%) was due to ‘screener error’. In another case, discordance was due to cervical ‘biopsy interpretation error’, with initial over‐diagnosis as squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Conclusion: In this retrospective study, we determined the causes of cytohistological discrepancies in cervical samples. The main explanation for discrepancy was ‘sampling error’.</description><subject>cervical biopsy</subject><subject>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cervix Uteri - pathology</subject><subject>cytohistological correlation</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - methods</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer - standards</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>interpretation error</subject><subject>Neoplasm Grading - methods</subject><subject>Neoplasms, Squamous Cell - diagnosis</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Pap smear</subject><subject>Papanicolaou Test</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>sampling error</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>squamous intraepithelial lesion</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Vaginal Smears - methods</subject><subject>Vaginal Smears - standards</subject><issn>0956-5507</issn><issn>1365-2303</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkEtPAyEUhYnR2Pr4C2aWbmbkUZghcWMabTU-E41xRRiGViodFKa18-9lWu1aNtxwzrn38gGQIJiheM5mGSKMpphAkmGIUAYhxyxb7YD-VtgFfcgpSymFeQ8chDCDEGGOyT7oYcQxp3nRBzdPC2lN0ybK1Y13NjF1orRfGuWWcmpqaRPVNs66aZuU7bp-N2H9YFQnOu-1lY1x9RHYm0gb9PHvfQheri6fh-P09mF0Pby4TdUAMpYOSo6R1BhRLkvNESGTqqgYi5shTDSlZUV1UbBBPokyz6HGlYo_0bykiCtIDsHppu-nd18LHRoxN0Fpa2Wt3SIIhHOS53xAaLQWG6vyLgSvJ-LTm7n0rUBQdCTFTHTARAdMdCTFmqRYxejJ75RFOdfVNviHLhrON4ZvY3X778Zi-PYcixhPN_FIU6-2cek_BIv7U_F6PxLw6Q5x9ojFmPwAd_-RJQ</recordid><startdate>201302</startdate><enddate>201302</enddate><creator>Izadi-Mood, N.</creator><creator>Sarmadi, S.</creator><creator>Sanii, S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201302</creationdate><title>Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation</title><author>Izadi-Mood, N. ; Sarmadi, S. ; Sanii, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>cervical biopsy</topic><topic>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cervix Uteri - pathology</topic><topic>cytohistological correlation</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - methods</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer - standards</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>interpretation error</topic><topic>Neoplasm Grading - methods</topic><topic>Neoplasms, Squamous Cell - diagnosis</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Pap smear</topic><topic>Papanicolaou Test</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>sampling error</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>squamous intraepithelial lesion</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Vaginal Smears - methods</topic><topic>Vaginal Smears - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Izadi-Mood, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sarmadi, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanii, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cytopathology (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Izadi-Mood, N.</au><au>Sarmadi, S.</au><au>Sanii, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation</atitle><jtitle>Cytopathology (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Cytopathology</addtitle><date>2013-02</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>33</spage><epage>38</epage><pages>33-38</pages><issn>0956-5507</issn><eissn>1365-2303</eissn><abstract>N. Izadi‐Mood, S. Sarmadi and S. Sanii
Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation
Objective: Frequent studies attest to the correlation of cytological interpretations with defined histopathological entities. Nevertheless, as part of quality control, cytology laboratories are required to compare Papanicolaou smear reports with those of cervical biopsies to search for discrepancies. We have attempted to determine and categorize the causes of existing discrepancies in our laboratory in order to clarify the source of errors.
Methods: We reviewed 670 cervical smears that were paired with subsequent punch biopsy or endocervical curettage samples, obtained within 2 months of the cytology, and found out that 60 smear‐biopsy pairs were discrepant regarding the diagnosis. These cases were categorized into four error groups after careful re‐evaluation of the original smear and biopsy slides.
Results: In 51 (85%) of 60 cervical smear‐biopsy pairs with reports that disagreed, the initial diagnoses of both cervical smear and biopsy were confirmed by the review opinion; in these cases, cytology and biopsy ‘sampling errors’ were responsible for 40 and 11 instances of discrepancy, respectively. Seven cases (11.1%) were discrepant due to ‘smear interpretation errors’ and consisted of five cases with initial under‐diagnosis and two cases with initial over‐diagnosis. One case (1.7%) was due to ‘screener error’. In another case, discordance was due to cervical ‘biopsy interpretation error’, with initial over‐diagnosis as squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Conclusion: In this retrospective study, we determined the causes of cytohistological discrepancies in cervical samples. The main explanation for discrepancy was ‘sampling error’.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>21929578</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00926.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0956-5507 |
ispartof | Cytopathology (Oxford), 2013-02, Vol.24 (1), p.33-38 |
issn | 0956-5507 1365-2303 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1273779435 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | cervical biopsy Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis Cervix Uteri - pathology cytohistological correlation Early Detection of Cancer - methods Early Detection of Cancer - standards Female Humans interpretation error Neoplasm Grading - methods Neoplasms, Squamous Cell - diagnosis Observer Variation Pap smear Papanicolaou Test Quality Control Reproducibility of Results Retrospective Studies sampling error Sensitivity and Specificity squamous intraepithelial lesion Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis Vaginal Smears - methods Vaginal Smears - standards |
title | Quality control in cervicovaginal cytology by cytohistological correlation |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T04%3A02%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality%20control%20in%20cervicovaginal%20cytology%20by%20cytohistological%20correlation&rft.jtitle=Cytopathology%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Izadi-Mood,%20N.&rft.date=2013-02&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=33&rft.epage=38&rft.pages=33-38&rft.issn=0956-5507&rft.eissn=1365-2303&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00926.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1273779435%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4066-4b921ae2159abe9133fd8d66923123e55bd5e88647fbe9970e2dc095e9b519c03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1273779435&rft_id=info:pmid/21929578&rfr_iscdi=true |