Hyunsoo Hwang1, Michele Follen2,3, Martial Guillaud4, Michael Scheurer5, Calum MacAulay4, Calum MacAulay4, Gregg A Staerkel6, Dirk van Niekerk7, Jose-Miguel Yamal1. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SUNY Downstate College of Medicine, Brooklyn, New York. 4. Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Center, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology/Oncology Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. 6. Department of Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Pap test has been the standard screening method for cervical precancer/cancer detection, it has been criticized for having a relatively low sensitivity and a low reproducibility between pathologists. There is limited knowledge about inter-rater agreement and what clinical and demographic factors are associated with disagreements between pathologists reading the same Pap smear. METHODS: This study aimed to assess inter- and intra- rater agreement of the Pap smear in 1619 cytologic slides with biopsy confirmation, using kappa statistics. Clinical and demographic factors associated with higher odds of inter-rater agreement were also examined and stratified by histologic diagnosis grade. RESULTS: Using a five grade classification system, the overall kappa statistics for total, inter-rater, and intra-rater samples were 0.62, 0.57, and 0.88 (unweighted) and 0.83, 0.81, and 0.95 (weighted), respectively. In stratified analyses by histologic grade, total kappas ranged from 0.40 (atypia) to 0.64 (human papilloma virus/CIN 1). Factors such as referral for abnormal Pap test (diagnostic vs screening population), recruiting site, and parity were found to be associated with higher agreement between the two cytologic readings. CONCLUSIONS: We observed relatively higher levels of agreement compared with other studies. However, variability was considerable and agreement was generally moderate, suggesting that cervical screening test accuracy and reproducibility needs to be improved.
BACKGROUND: Although the Pap test has been the standard screening method for cervical precancer/cancer detection, it has been criticized for having a relatively low sensitivity and a low reproducibility between pathologists. There is limited knowledge about inter-rater agreement and what clinical and demographic factors are associated with disagreements between pathologists reading the same Pap smear. METHODS: This study aimed to assess inter- and intra- rater agreement of the Pap smear in 1619 cytologic slides with biopsy confirmation, using kappa statistics. Clinical and demographic factors associated with higher odds of inter-rater agreement were also examined and stratified by histologic diagnosis grade. RESULTS: Using a five grade classification system, the overall kappa statistics for total, inter-rater, and intra-rater samples were 0.62, 0.57, and 0.88 (unweighted) and 0.83, 0.81, and 0.95 (weighted), respectively. In stratified analyses by histologic grade, total kappas ranged from 0.40 (atypia) to 0.64 (human papilloma virus/CIN 1). Factors such as referral for abnormal Pap test (diagnostic vs screening population), recruiting site, and parity were found to be associated with higher agreement between the two cytologic readings. CONCLUSIONS: We observed relatively higher levels of agreement compared with other studies. However, variability was considerable and agreement was generally moderate, suggesting that cervical screening test accuracy and reproducibility needs to be improved.
Authors: M Confortini; F Carozzi; P Dalla Palma; B Ghiringhello; F Parisio; S Prandi; G Ronco; S Ciatto; G Montanari Journal: Cytopathology Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.073
Authors: I Kato; M Santamaria; P A De Ruiz; N Aristizabal; F X Bosch; S De Sanjosé; N Muñoz Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Scott B Cantor; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial Guillaud; Dennis D Cox; E Neely Atkinson; John L Benedet; Dianne Miller; Thomas Ehlen; Jasenka Matisic; Dirk van Niekerk; Monique Bertrand; Andrea Milbourne; Helen Rhodes; Anais Malpica; Gregg Staerkel; Shahla Nader-Eftekhari; Karen Adler-Storthz; Michael E Scheurer; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; Loyd A West; Anne-Therese Vlastos; Xia Tao; J Robert Beck; Calum Macaulay; Michele Follen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M Confortini; A Bondi; M P Cariaggi; F Carozzi; P Dalla Palma; B Ghiringhello; D Minucci; G Montanari; F Parisio; S Prandi; M L Schiboni; G Ronco Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.582