Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET Testing System.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the performance of the PAPNET Testing System and compare the sensitivity of this automated device with that of rapid rescreening.


METHODS
In this study, 1,000 cervical smears previously diagnosed by our laboratory as negative were seeded with 20 particularly "difficult" cases. We submitted this seeded set of smears for rapid rescreening and to PAPNET to determine cases that could be detected by rapid rescreening, PAPNET or both.


RESULTS
Rapid rescreening detected 9 of the 20 cases (45%). The PAPNET system identified 19/20 (95%). This investigation found PAPNET rescreening to be more effective than rapid rescreening in detecting the seeded difficult cases.


CONCLUSIONS
Use of the PAPNET Testing System in tandem with rapid rescreening can reduce the rate of false negatives in diagnostically difficult cervical cytologic smears.
Halford
J A
JA
Department of Anatomical Pathology, Queensland Medical Laboratory, Brisbane, Australia.
Wright
R G
RG
Ditchmen
E J
EJ
D001331:Automation; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation*; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008328:Man-Machine Systems; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000295:instrumentation*; D016571:Neural Networks, Computer; D027383:Papillomaviridae; D030361:Papillomavirus Infections / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D011786:Quality Control; D014412:Tumor Virus Infections / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology; D002575:Uterine Cervicitis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000473:pathology / Q000821:virology; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014741:Video Recording