title: Quality control of cervical cytology in high-risk women. PAPNET system compared with manual rescreening.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the effectiveness of the PAPNET System with conventional rescreening of negative cervical smears in a high-risk population.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three thousand ninety-seven negative cervical smears from women with past history of cervical abnormalities were rescreened manually and with the PAPNET System. There were two reviews of PAPNET images: the first by two cytotechnologists with limited exposure to the instrument, and the second, limited to smears with discrepant diagnoses, by an expert in the use of the system. The remaining discrepant smears were submitted to a blinded microscopic review by a third party. The a priori consensus diagnosis was arbitrarily established when the result of two of the three reviews--manual, PAPNET and the independent third review--were concordant. The results of rescreening were compared with available biopsies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  On manual rescreening of the 3,097 smears, 2,901 (93.66%) were reported as negative and 170 (5.49%) as abnormal. On the first PAPNET review, 2,938 (94.87%) were reported as negative and 150 (4.84%) as abnormal. There were 144 smears with discrepant diagnoses. After the second PAPNET review of these discrepant smears, the agreement between manual and PAPNET rescreening rose from 94.27% to 95.58%. A final, blinded review of 89 residual discrepant smears was used to establish consensus diagnoses. The diagnoses made by PAPNET-assisted rescreening agreed much better with the consensus diagnoses than did manual rescreening (Kappa = .61 vs. Kappa = -.32, P < .001). When compared with the results of 50 available biopsies, PAPNET-assisted rescreening also had a somewhat lower false negative rate (sensitivity 58.82% vs. 41.18%, P = .17) and a statistically significant lower false positive rate (specificity 63.64% vs. 36.36%, P = .01).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  PAPNET-assisted rescreening, when carried out by an experienced person, is more efficient than manual rescreening.
authors.affiliation: Laboratoire Pasteur-Cerba, Cergy Pontoise, France. bergeron@pasteur-cerba.com
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bergeron
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Masseroli
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ghezi
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lemarie
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Mango
authors.forename: L G
authors.initials: LG
authors.lastname: Koss
mesh_terms: D003581:Cytodiagnosis / Q000592:standards*; D003936:Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / Q000592:standards*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening; D011786:Quality Control; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014625:Vaginal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000592:standards