Journals / Erciyes Tıp Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 1

Anormal sitoloji hikayesi olan hastalarda servikal sitoloji değerlendirmesinde gözlemciler arası değişkenlik: Geleneksel pap smear ve sıvı bazlı sitoloji karşılaştırması

Interobserver variability in cervical smears from patients with a history of abnormal cytology: Comparison of conventional pap smears and liquid-based cytology

Pages
13–17
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study showed no significant difference between LBC and CPS in the reproducibility of the diagnosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: One of the problems encountered when assessingcervical precancerous lesions is intra- and interobserver variability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to determine the degree ofinterobserver variation in conventional PAP smears (CPS) andliquid-based cytology (LBC).Materials and Methods: The diagnostic variability among threepathologists was assessed using 120 smears (67 conventionalCPS and 53 LBC).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study showed no significant difference between LBC and CPS in the reproducibility of the diagnosis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: One of the problems encountered when assessingcervical precancerous lesions is intra- and interobserver variability. The aim of this study was to determine the degree ofinterobserver variation in conventional PAP smears (CPS) andliquid-based cytology (LBC).Materials and Methods: The diagnostic variability among threepathologists was assessed using 120 smears (67 conventionalCPS and 53 LBC). The cases were selected retrospectively fromthe archives of the Pathology Department among the patientswith follow-up, such as biopsy confirmation and/or persistent/resolving disease in the follow-up smear. The observers examined the slides in a blinded fashion.Results: Diagnostic agreement on the presence or absence of intraepithelial lesions was found in 30 of 51 slides (58.82%) of LBC (kappa=0.42) and in 44 of 67 slides (65.67%) of conventional cytology (kappa=0.50). The agreement was slightly higher in conventional smears. The highest agreement was in the LSIL category with a kappa value of 0.50 in LBC and 0.62 in conventional cytology, while ASCUS was the least reproducible diagnosis. Conclusion: Our results are in agreement with the literature in that the reproducibility of cervical cytology shows low to moderate consistency. The study showed no significant difference between LBC and CPS in the reproducibility of the diagnosis.

Özet

Amaç: Servikal prekanseröz lezyonlar sözkonusu olduğunda tanının tekrarlanabilirliği problemlerden biri olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Çalışmamızda geleneksel pap smear ve sıvı bazlısitoloji de gözlemciler arasındaki farlılık derecesinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Yüz yirmi smear (67 konvansiyonel, 53sıvı bazlı sitoloji) incelenerek, 3 patolog arasındaki tanısaldeğişkenlik araştırılmıştır. Olgular patoloji departmanı arşivinden, biyopsi ile kanıtlı, gerilemiş veya ısrarcı hastalık şeklindetakipli hastalar arasından seçilmiştir. İnceleme kör olarak yapılmıştır. Bulgular: İntraepitelyal lezyon varlığı veya yokluğu konusundaki tanısal uzlaşma, sıvı bazlı sitolojilerde %58,82 (kappa=0,42) geleneksel yaymalarda %65,57 (kappa=0,50) olarak bulundu. Sonuçlar geleneksel yaymalarda biraz daha yüksek olup en yüksek tutarlılık LSIL kategorisinde (geleneksel yaymada kappa 0,62, sıvı bazlı sitolojide 0,50) izlenirken ASCUS uyumun en düşük olduğu tanı olarak belirlendi. Sonuç: Sonuçlarımız literatür bilgilerine paralel olup, servikal sitolojide tekrarlanabilirlik düşük-orta derecededir. Bu çalışmada sitoloji yöntemleri arasında belirgin fark gözlenmemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAŞSÜLLÜ, N., ARICI, S., BİNGÖL, B., ÇETİNASLAN, İ. T., BÜLBÜL, G. D. (2022). Anormal sitoloji hikayesi olan hastalarda servikal sitoloji değerlendirmesinde gözlemciler arası değişkenlik: Geleneksel pap smear ve sıvı bazlı sitoloji karşılaştırması. Erciyes Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 1, 13–17. https://ajindex.com/articles/503041

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Koss LG. Melamet MR. Koss’ Diagnostic Cytology And Its Histopathologic Bases. 5th edition. Lipingot Williams and Wilkins. 2010
  2. Duca P Braga M, Chiappa L, Piffer R, Turolla E. Intralaboratory rep- roducibility of interpretation of Pap smears: results of an experiment. Tumori 1988; 74(6): 737-44
  3. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P Martin-Hirsch P Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(1): 167-77. [CrossRef] 4. Rosenthal DL, Geddes S, Trimble CL, Carson KA, Alli PM. The PapS- pin: a reasonable alternative to other, more expensive liquid-based Papanicolaou tests. Cancer 2006; 108(3): 137-43. [CrossRef] 5. Settakorn J, Rangdaeng S, Preechapornkul N, Nateewatana S, Pongsiralai K, Srisomboon J, et al. Interobserver reproducibility with LiquiPrep liquid-based cervical cytology screening in a developing country. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2008; 9(1): 92-6
  4. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P Le Galès C, Cartier I, Molinié V, et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003; 326(7392): 733. [CrossRef] 7. Duggan MA, Khalil M, Brasher PM, Nation JG. Comparative study of the ThinPrep Pap test and conventional cytology results in a Canadian cohort. Cytopathology 2006; 17(2): 73-81. [CrossRef] 8. Celik C, Gezginç K, Toy H, Findik S, Yilmaz O. A comparison of liqu- id-based cytology with conventional cytology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 100(2): 163-6. [CrossRef] 9. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, Coleman SA, Johnston WW, Ashton PR, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis. II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol 1987; 31(6): 900-10
  5. Klinkhamer PJ, Vooijs GP de Haan AF Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1988; 32(6): 794-800
  6. Confortini M, Biggeri A, Cariaggi MP Carozzi FM, Minuti PA, Russo A, et al. Intralaboratory reproducibility in cervical cytology. Results of the application of a 100-slide set. Acta Cytol 1993; 37(1): 49-54
  7. Stoler MH, Schiffman M; Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic