Limitations of widely used high-risk human papillomavirus laboratory-developed testing in cervical cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: To increase awareness of the limitations of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) laboratory-developed testing (LDT) widely used in US cervical cancer screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: A young woman in her 30s was diagnosed and treated for stage 1B1 cervical squamous cell carcinoma in which HPV 16 DNA was detected using polymerase chain reaction testing. Both 1 month before and 42 months before cervical cancer diagnosis, the patient had highly abnormal cytology findings; however, residual SurePath™ (Becton, Dickson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ) vial fluid yielded negative Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen NV, Hilden, Germany) hrHPV LDT results from each of the two specimens. This prompted questions to be asked concerning the performance characteristics of hrHPV LDT. A review of the available data indicates that (1) purification of DNA from SurePath specimens requires complex sample preparation due to formaldehyde crosslinking of proteins and nucleic acids, (2) HC2-SurePath hrHPV testing had not been Food and Drug Administration-approved after multiple premarket approval submissions, (3) detectible hrHPV DNA in the SurePath vial decreases over time, and (4) US laboratories performing HC2-SurePath hrHPV LDT testing are not using a standardized manufacturer-endorsed procedure. CONCLUSION: Recently updated cervical screening guidelines in the US recommend against the use of hrHPV LDT in cervical screening, including widely used HC2 testing from the SurePath vial. The manufacturer recently issued a technical bulletin specifically warning that use of SurePath samples with the HC2 hrHPV test may provide false negative results and potentially compromise patient safety. Co-collection using a Food and Drug Administration-approved hrHPV test medium is recommended for HPV testing of patients undergoing cervical screening using SurePath samples

The Role of Monitoring Interpretive Rates, Concordance Between Cytotechnologist and Pathologist Interpretations Before Sign-Out, and Turnaround Time in Gynecologic Cytology Quality Assurance Findings From the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytopathology Quality Consensus Conference Working Group 1

Context.-The College of American Pathologists (CAP) conducted a national survey of gynecologic cytology quality assurance (QA) practices. Experts in gynecologic cytology were asked to join 5 working groups that studied the survey data on different aspects of QA. Evaluating the survey data and follow-up questions online, together with a review of pertinent literature, the working groups developed a series of preliminary statements on good laboratory practices in cytology QA. These were presented at a consensus conference and electronic voting occurred. Objective.-To evaluate a set of QA monitors in gynecologic cytology. Working group 1 evaluated (1) monitoring interpretive rate categories for Papanicolaou tests (Pap tests), (2) concordance of cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations before sign-out, and (3) turnaround time for Pap tests. Data Sources.-The statements are based on a survey of gynecologic cytology QA practice patterns and of opinions from working group members and consensus conference attendees. Conclusions.-The outcomes of this process demonstrate the current state of practice patterns in gynecologic cytology QA. Monitoring interpretive rates for all Bethesda System categories is potentially useful, and it is most useful to monitor interpretive rates for cytotechnologists individually and in comparison to the entire laboratory. Laboratories need to determine what level of discrepancy between cytotechnologist and pathologist interpretations of Pap tests is important to track. Laboratories should consider formalizing procedures and policies to adjudicate such discrepant interpretations. Turnaround time should be monitored in gynecologic cytology, but individual laboratories should determine how to measure and use turnaround time internally

A sound foundation is key

In 1990, when I was a young academician, I presented a talk at the International Conference on the Computerized Cytology and Histopathology Laboratory entitled, "Fixation of Specimens for Quantitative DNA Analysis by Slide-Based Fuelgen Microspectrometry."1 I had done some simple, basic work that pointed out the problems of not taking fixation and specimen preparation into account. I did not consider it to be a particularly exciting topic. However, a lasting impression was made upon me by the kind and positive comments by Dr. Leo Koss about the importance of my paper and others like it that focused upon validating one of the "first steps" in marker studies: choosing the optimal specimen preparation and fixation, and defining the variables related to those processes. Dr. Koss talked about the many published papers touting a correlation with some clinical condition that were useless because the variables of specimen preparation and fixation had not been taken into account

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used