An evaluation of 'rapid review' as a method of quality control of cervical smears using the AxioHOME microscope.
One method of quality control which has recently been recommended by professional bodies in the UK is the 'rapid review' method. This involves the microscopic 30 s review of all negative cervical smears with the intention of flagging potential missed abnormalities. Although it has been suggested that rapid review is better than 10% random rescreening of negative smears, the efficiency and efficacy of this method of quality control have not been thoroughly evaluated. We have used the AxioHOME system, which can record the area of a slide covered and the screening time, to investigate slide coverage during rapid review quality control, as performed by 15 cytoscreeners and MLSOs reviewing a test set of 22 slides each. The test set comprised 18 negative slides, three positive slides, and one unsatisfactory slide. We have recorded two distinct methods of rapid review in use amongst cytotechnologists, the step method and the whole slide method. The data show that rapid review takes longer on average than the recommended 30 s, the mean screening times being 76 s and 82 s for the step and whole slide methods, respectively. Abnormal smears were missed on three of 15 occasions by the step method (sensitivity 80%, positive predictive value 85%), and on seven of 30 occasions by the whole slide method (sensitivity 76.6%, positive predictive value 45%). However, the 95% confidence intervals were wide (57.7-90.7% for the step method, and 51.9-95.7% for the whole slide method). Analysis of scanning tracks and screening rates shows significant flaws in the methodology of rapid review. Abnormal cells were not identified, although dyskaryotic cells were included in the scanning track on nine occasions, seven using the whole slide method and two using the step method. On one occasion (using the step method) abnormal cells were not identified because they were not included in the scanning track. Further research is in progress to determine optimal methods of rapid review, and whether the rapid review technique is as effective as automated screening systems for quality assurance in cytology.
Baker
R W
RW
Department of Cytopathology and Cytogenetics, Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary's London, UK.
Wadsworth
J
J
Brugal
G
G
Coleman
D V
DV
D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D008853:Microscopy / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011786:Quality Control; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*