OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of rapid pre-screening (RPS) as a method of internal quality control in the cytopathological examination of cervical smears for cervical cancer screening. METHODS: The sample consisted of 6135 cervical smears submitted to RPS and routine screening (RS) methods. The smears classified as negative in RPS and RS were considered final diagnoses, and were not, therefore, submitted to any additional review. The smears identified as suspect or unsatisfactory according to RPS were analysed separately by two different cytologists irrespective of the diagnosis reached in RS. Smears considered abnormal or unsatisfactory at RS were also reviewed. When both cytologists issued concordant diagnoses, this was considered the final diagnosis. Discordant results were analysed by a third cytologist and a consensus meeting was held to define the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Taking abnormalities detected by RS as the denominator, RPS had a sensitivity of 63.0% for the detection of all abnormal smears and 96.7% for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). When compared with the final diagnosis, sensitivity of RPS for all abnormal smears was 74.9% and for HSIL 95.0%. Of the 529 abnormal smears confirmed in the final diagnosis, 2.15% were detected only by the RPS. CONCLUSION: RPS is an effective alternative method of internal quality control with high sensitivity for the detection of more severe lesions. It also permits monitoring of the laboratory rate of false-negative results, and allows constant evaluation of the performance both of the pre-screening and RS cytologists.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of rapid pre-screening (RPS) as a method of internal quality control in the cytopathological examination of cervical smears for cervical cancer screening. METHODS: The sample consisted of 6135 cervical smears submitted to RPS and routine screening (RS) methods. The smears classified as negative in RPS and RS were considered final diagnoses, and were not, therefore, submitted to any additional review. The smears identified as suspect or unsatisfactory according to RPS were analysed separately by two different cytologists irrespective of the diagnosis reached in RS. Smears considered abnormal or unsatisfactory at RS were also reviewed. When both cytologists issued concordant diagnoses, this was considered the final diagnosis. Discordant results were analysed by a third cytologist and a consensus meeting was held to define the final diagnosis. RESULTS:Taking abnormalities detected by RS as the denominator, RPS had a sensitivity of 63.0% for the detection of all abnormal smears and 96.7% for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). When compared with the final diagnosis, sensitivity of RPS for all abnormal smears was 74.9% and for HSIL 95.0%. Of the 529 abnormal smears confirmed in the final diagnosis, 2.15% were detected only by the RPS. CONCLUSION: RPS is an effective alternative method of internal quality control with high sensitivity for the detection of more severe lesions. It also permits monitoring of the laboratory rate of false-negative results, and allows constant evaluation of the performance both of the pre-screening and RS cytologists.