Literature DB >> 11782081

Reproducibility of cervicovaginal ThinPrep cellularity assessment.

Shamsa Haroon1, Luis Samayoa, Donald Witzke, Diane Davey.   

Abstract

Criteria for judging the squamous cellularity adequacy of cervicovaginal ThinPreps using cell counts in representative fields have been proposed. We compared the interobserver reproducibility in the designation of ThinPreps as satisfactory (SAT), satisfactory but limited by (SBLB), or unsatisfactory (UNS) for interpretation. Three reviewers independently assessed 145 cervicovaginal ThinPreps accessioned from 1997-1999 at the University of Kentucky cytopathology laboratory. Scant specimens were retrieved by computer search and more cellular specimens were added to make 145. Adjacent fields on a diameter including center at 10x and 40x were counted for sufficiently preserved and unobscured cells. A specimen was designated UNS if four or more fields at 10x had less than 10 squamous cells, and SBLB if four or more fields at 40x had less than five squamous cells. All three observers agreed on the adequacy designation in 76% of cases and the overall kappa was 0.73 (near excellent). Complete interobserver agreement was present in 86% (63/73) of UNS cases, 79% (33/42) of SAT, but only 47% (14/30) of SBLB slides. When SBLB and UNS categories were combined, the discrimination from the SAT category was excellent (kappa = 0.87) with pairwise k-values of 0.94-0.97. In conclusion, adjacent field cell count methods to judge ThinPrep cellularity provide near excellent interobserver reproducibility. While we have designated both UNS and SBLB adequacy categories, criteria could easily be revised to set one threshold to separate SAT and UNS ThinPreps. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11782081     DOI: 10.1002/dc.10045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  1 in total

1.  Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Fontaine; Nadira Narine; Christopher Naugler
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 2.692

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.