BACKGROUND: The Bethesda System (TBS) along with its companion atlas was updated in 2001 to improve standardization, clarity, and reproducibility of cervical cytology reporting. METHODS: The authors used a novel web-based format to compare assessments of 77 images demonstrating a range of classical and borderline cytologic changes by a self-selected group of United States cytotechnologists (n = 216) and pathologists (n = 185). RESULTS: Participants were highly experienced, with 71.2% of cytotechnologists and 53.0% of pathologists reporting >10 years of practice. The mean percentage of exact agreement with the panel was slightly though significantly higher for cytotechnologists (57.0%) compared with pathologists (53.4%), adjusted for experience (P = .004); cervical cytology percentage effort (P = .0005); or cervical accession volume (P = .0002). Compared with the TBS panel, exact agreement was achieved for 55.1% of image ratings compared with 82.3% agreement at the level of Negative vs non-Negative for images with a single-panel interpretation. Agreement with the panel was highest for images classified as Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and lowest for Atypical Squamous Cells qualified as either of Undetermined Significance or Cannot Exclude a High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion. Reviewers were less sensitive in identifying high-grade glandular lesions than they were in identifying high-grade squamous lesions at any threshold (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Morphologic appearances of images were more important determinants than participants' academic or professional degrees with regard to interobserver reproducibility in classifying cervical cytology images. Experienced cytotechnologists and pathologists performed similarly. Participants achieved higher sensitivity for identifying high-grade squamous lesions than they did for high-grade glandular lesions. These findings demonstrated that web-based studies may be useful in assessing interobserver agreement in classifying images. Published 2006 by the American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: The Bethesda System (TBS) along with its companion atlas was updated in 2001 to improve standardization, clarity, and reproducibility of cervical cytology reporting. METHODS: The authors used a novel web-based format to compare assessments of 77 images demonstrating a range of classical and borderline cytologic changes by a self-selected group of United States cytotechnologists (n = 216) and pathologists (n = 185). RESULTS:Participants were highly experienced, with 71.2% of cytotechnologists and 53.0% of pathologists reporting >10 years of practice. The mean percentage of exact agreement with the panel was slightly though significantly higher for cytotechnologists (57.0%) compared with pathologists (53.4%), adjusted for experience (P = .004); cervical cytology percentage effort (P = .0005); or cervical accession volume (P = .0002). Compared with the TBS panel, exact agreement was achieved for 55.1% of image ratings compared with 82.3% agreement at the level of Negative vs non-Negative for images with a single-panel interpretation. Agreement with the panel was highest for images classified as Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and lowest for Atypical Squamous Cells qualified as either of Undetermined Significance or Cannot Exclude a High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion. Reviewers were less sensitive in identifying high-grade glandular lesions than they were in identifying high-grade squamous lesions at any threshold (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Morphologic appearances of images were more important determinants than participants' academic or professional degrees with regard to interobserver reproducibility in classifying cervical cytology images. Experienced cytotechnologists and pathologists performed similarly. Participants achieved higher sensitivity for identifying high-grade squamous lesions than they did for high-grade glandular lesions. These findings demonstrated that web-based studies may be useful in assessing interobserver agreement in classifying images. Published 2006 by the American Cancer Society.
Authors: Walter Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; J Thomas Cox; Thomas Lorey; Tracy Flanagan; Philip E Castle Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Daniel F I Kurtycz; Ester Diana Rossi; Zubair Baloch; Derek Pavelec; Emilio Madrigal; Philippe Vielh; William Faquin Journal: J Am Soc Cytopathol Date: 2020-02-11
Authors: Longwen Chen; Christine N Booth; Julie A Shorie; Jennifer A Brainard; Matthew A Zarka Journal: Cytojournal Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Erica R Heitmann; Kamani M Lankachandra; Jeff Wall; George D Harris; Hollie J McKinney; G Reza Jalali; Yogita Verma; Eric Kershnar; Michael W Kilpatrick; Petros Tsipouras; Diane M Harper Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240