RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF NON-CORRELATING CERVICAL SMEARS AND COLPOSCOPICALLY DIRECTED BIOPSIES

被引：15

作者：

SIDAWY, MK

SIRIAUNKGUL, S

FROST, AR

机构：

[1] Department of Pathology, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia

来源：

DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY | 1994年 / 11卷 / 04期

关键词：

CYTOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS; CERVICAL BIOPSY; DISCREPANCY;

D O I：

10.1002/dc.2840110406

中图分类号：

R446 [实验室诊断]; R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];

学科分类号：

1001 ;

摘要：

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cause of discrepancies between non-correlating cytologic and histologic cervical samples. The biopsy results of 433 women examined colposcopically were compared to their referral cervical smears (RS). There was a discrepancy between the RS and the subsequent biopsy in 120 women (28%). One hundred of these 120 RS were available for review; and in each case, a reason for the discrepancy was established and classified as RS overcall, RS undercall, RS sampling error, or biopsy sampling error. Fifty-one discrepant RS were overcalled. They were reported initially as condyloma (19), mild dysplasia (22), and moderate dysplasia (10). One RS was undercalled. Nine RS were nor diagnostic of the biopsy-proven lesion due to smear sampling error. The discrepancies in the remaining 39 cases were due to biopsy sampling error. Twenty-one of these 39 cases had additional biopsies or smears that confirmed the presence of condyloma/dysplasia, and 18 had negative follow-up, In summary, discrepancies were a result of pathologists' interpretative error, predominantly overcalls, in 52% of non-correlating cases, and smear or biopsy sampling error in the remaining 48%. (C) 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

引用

页码：343 / 347

页数：5

共 26 条

[1]

Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS, Et al., Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, Br Med J, 298, pp. 707-710, (1989)

[2]

Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Swanson Beck J, Et al., Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens, J Clin Pathol, 42, pp. 231-238, (1989)

[3]

Evans DMD, Shelley G, Cleary B, Baldwin W., Observer variation and quality control in cytodiagnosis, J Clin Pathol, 27, pp. 945-950, (1974)

[4]

Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs OP, de Haan AFJ, Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears, Acta Cytol, 32, pp. 794-800, (1988)

[5]

Vooijs GP, Benign proliferative reactions, intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix, Comprehensive cytopathology, (1991)

[6]

Koss LG, Cytologic evaluation of the uterine cervix: factors influencing accuracy, Pathologist, 36, pp. 401-407, (1982)

[7]

Lambourne A, Lederer H., Effects of observer variation in population screening for cervical carcinoma, J Clin Pathol, 26, pp. 564-569, (1973)

[8]

Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, Et al., Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis: II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases, Acta Cytol, 31, pp. 900-910, (1987)

[9]

Maggi R, Zannoni E, Giorda G, Biraghi P, Sideri M., Comparison of repeat smear, colposcopy, and colposcopically directed biopsy in the evaluation of mildly abnormal smears, Gynecol Oncol, 35, pp. 294-296, (1989)

[10]

Shepherd J, Lynch W., Koilocytotic atypia and underlying dysplasia, J Fam Pract, 33, pp. 168-171, (1991)

← 1 2 3 →