Historical analysis of the Brazilian cervical cancer screening program from 2006 to 2013: a time for reflection

BACKGROUND: The Cervical Cancer Database of the Brazilian National Health Service (SISCOLO) contains information regarding all cervical cytological tests and, if properly explored, can be used as a tool for monitoring and managing the cervical cancer screening program. The aim of this study was to perform a historical analysis of the cervical cancer screening program in Brazil from 2006 to 2013. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data necessary to calculate quality indicators were obtained from the SISCOLO, a Brazilian health system tool. Joinpoint analysis was used to calculate the annual percentage change. RESULTS: We observed important trends showing decreased rates of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and an increased rate of rejected exams from 2009 to 2013. The index of positivity was maintained at levels below those indicated by international standards; very low frequencies of unsatisfactory cases were observed over the study period, which partially contradicts the low rate of positive cases. The number of positive cytological diagnoses was below that expected, considering that developed countries with low frequencies of cervical cancer detect more lesions annually. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of indicators from 2006 to 2013 suggests that actions must be taken to improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer control in Brazil

Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens

Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens Objectives: To compare the performance of the 100% rapid review method carried out in a mean time of either 1 or 2 minutes according to cytological final result, and to assess whether the presence of obscuring factors in cervical smear samples affects the frequency of false-negative results. Methods: A total of 5 235 smears classified as negative (93.0%) or unsatisfactory (2.1%) at routine screening were submitted to 100% rapid review using mean times of 1 and 2 minutes. Results: Of the 5 235 smears submitted to 1-minute rapid review, 88 were considered suspect and of these, 45 were confirmed as abnormal in the cytological final result. When the time used was 2 minutes, 67 smears were considered suspect, 44 of which were confirmed as abnormal. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in the 1- and 2-minute reviews. In smears in which samples were satisfactory and had no obscuring factors, sensitivity and specificity were 64.2% and 98.9% and 61.5% and 99.5% for the 1- and 2-minute reviews, respectively. In comparison, in smears in which the sample was satisfactory for analysis but partially obscured (50-75%), sensitivity and specificity were 64.7% and 99.9% and 70.6% and 99.8% for the 1- and 2-minute reviews, respectively. Conclusions: The method of rapid review of 100% showed no difference in the detection of false-negative results using the time of 1 or 2 minutes. The quality of the sample did not influence the detection of false-negatives.223195201Goias Foundation [002/2007]Goias Foundation [002/2007

Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening and the review of smears selected on the basis of clinical criteria, as a method of internal quality control of cervical smears classified as negative during routine screening. Methods: A total of 3149 smears were analysed, 173 of which were classified as positive and 2887 as negative, while 89 smears were considered unsatisfactory. The smears classified as negative were submitted to 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening, and rescreening based on clinical criteria. The rescreening stages were blinded and results were classified according to the Bethesda 2001 terminology. Six cytologists participated in this study, two of whom were responsible for routine screening while the other four alternated in carrying out rescreening so that no individual reviewed the same slide more than once. Results: The 100% rapid rescreening method identified 92 suspect smears, of which 42 were considered positive at final diagnosis. Of the 289 smears submitted to the 10% rescreening method, four were considered abnormal but only one was confirmed positive in the final diagnosis. Of the 690 smears rescreened on the basis of clinical criteria, 10 were considered abnormal and eight received a positive final diagnosis. Conclusions: The 100% rapid rescreening method is more efficient at detecting false-negative results than 10% random rescreening or rescreening on the basis of clinical criteria, and is recommended as an internal quality control method.17311612

Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology

BACKGROUND. Rapid prescreening (RPS) is an internal quality-control (IQC) method that is used both to reduce errors in the laboratory and to measure the sensitivity of routine screening (RS). Little direct comparison data are available comparing RIPS with other more widely used IQC methods. METHODS. The authors compared the performance of RPS, 10%R-10%), and directed rescreening of negative smears based on clinical risk criteria (RCRC) over 1 year in a community clinic setting. RESULTS. in total, 6135 smears were evaluated. The sensitivity of RS alone was 71.3%. RPS detected significantly more (132 cases) false-negative (FN) cases than either R-10% (7 cases) or RCRC (32 cases). RPS significantly improved the overall sensitivity of the laboratory (71.3-92.2%; P = .001); neither R-10% nor RCRC significantly changed the sensitivity of RS. RPS was not as specific as the other methods, although nearly 68% of all abnormalities detected by RPS were verified as real. RPS of 100% of smears required the same amount of time as RCRC but required twice as much time as R-10%. CONCLUSIONS. The current results demonstrated that RPS is a much more effective IQC method than either R-10% or RCRC. RPS detects significantly more errors and can improve the overall sensitivity of a laboratory with either a modest increase or no increase in overall time spent on IQC. R-10% is an insensitive IQC method, and neither R-10% nor RCRC can significantly improve the overall sensitivity of a laboratory.114316517