OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, on a national cytology proficiency test, a competent cytologist can consistently distinguish grades of squamous intraepithelial lesions. DESIGN: Results for low- and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion referenced slides from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology for 1996 and 1997 were analyzed including educational, nongraded vs graded validated slides. RESULTS: The discrepant rate between low- and high- grade lesions ranged from 9.8% to 15% for cytotechnologist, pathologist, laboratory, and all responses. There was a statistically significant difference in performance on graded, validated slides vs educational slides with better performance on validated slides. CONCLUSION: This significant interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous lesions should be considered in management guidelines for abnormal Papanicolaou test results and implementation of national cytology proficiency testing.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, on a national cytology proficiency test, a competent cytologist can consistently distinguish grades of squamous intraepithelial lesions. DESIGN: Results for low- and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion referenced slides from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology for 1996 and 1997 were analyzed including educational, nongraded vs graded validated slides. RESULTS: The discrepant rate between low- and high- grade lesions ranged from 9.8% to 15% for cytotechnologist, pathologist, laboratory, and all responses. There was a statistically significant difference in performance on graded, validated slides vs educational slides with better performance on validated slides. CONCLUSION: This significant interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous lesions should be considered in management guidelines for abnormal Papanicolaou test results and implementation of national cytology proficiency testing.
Authors: Cornelia L Trimble; Steven Piantadosi; Patti Gravitt; Brigitte Ronnett; Ellen Pizer; Andrea Elko; Barbara Wilgus; William Yutzy; Richard Daniel; Keerti Shah; Shiwen Peng; Chienfu Hung; Richard Roden; Tzyy Choou Wu; Drew Pardoll Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial Guillaud; E Neely Atkinson; Michele Follen; Calum MacAulay; Scott B Cantor; Dennis D Cox Journal: Stat Anal Data Min Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 1.051
Authors: George Birdsong; Lydia Howell; Karen Atkison; R Marshall Austin; Marluce Bibbo; Thomas A Bonfiglio; Diane D Davey; Catherine Keebler; Dina Mody; Lynnette Savaloja; Jacalyn Papillo; Marianne Prey; Stephen Raab; Brenda L Schultz; Diane Solomon Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 2.091