ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Interlaboratory agreement in assessment of gynaecological cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Poland – a pilot evaluation
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Cancer Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
 
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland
 
 
Submission date: 2020-07-17
 
 
Final revision date: 2020-09-02
 
 
Acceptance date: 2020-10-29
 
 
Publication date: 2021-05-31
 
 
Pol J Pathol 2021;72(1):75-83
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
In our pilot study we have aimed to assess interlaboratory variability of cytological diagnoses in selected laboratories participating in the Polish Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (CCSP) to establish grounds for certification system for cytodiagnosticians and to monitor the quality of services. Set of 50 selected Pap smears, previously reassessed by an expert on the grounds of clinical, colposcopic and histological data was blinded and sent to 15 laboratories in Poland with request for evaluation according to routine practice according to the Bethesda 2001 system. Concordance with expert diagnoses reached a median of 82% (range: 66% to 92%), with median unweighted κ coefficient at κ = 0.67 (range 0.40 to 0.86) depending on laboratory. This indicates substantial agreement among laboratories, however with essential differences in proper evaluation in some outlying laboratories.
Agreement was highest in samples with high-grade, lower for low-grade abnormalities. Slides with ASC-US and ASC-H expert diagnoses were most troubling for cytodiagnosticians. Sets of highly selected cytological slides with expert diagnoses may serve as a tool in the process of comprehensive periodic recertification of cytodiagnosticians in the screening programme. A benchmark level of agreement with expert diagnoses should be established to guide corrective actions for cytodiagnosticians with lowest agreement.
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Bernard W. Stewart and Christopher P. Wild. IARC: World cancer report 2014, Lyon 2014.
 
2.
World Health Organization: Cervical cancer, Geneva 2018. Available at: https://www.who.int/cancer/pre... (access 16.07.2019).
 
3.
Wojciechowska U, Czaderny K, Ciuba A, et al. Cancer in Poland in 2016. Polish National Cancer Registry, Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention 2018.
 
4.
Nowakowski A, Wojciechowska U, Wieszczy P, et al. Trends in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Poland: is there an impact of the introduction of the organised screening? Eur.
 
5.
J Epidemiol 2017; 32: 529-532.
 
6.
The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw: National Cancer Registry. Available at: http://onkologia.org.pl/nowotw... (access 16.07.2019).
 
7.
Council of the European Union (2003). Council recommendation of 2 December 2003 on cancer screening (2003/878/EC). Off J Eur Union 2003; L 327: 34-38.
 
8.
Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al. (eds.). European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. 2nd edition. International Agency for Research on Cancer 2008.
 
9.
Gultekin M, Karaca MZ, Kucukyildiz I, et al. Initial results of population based cervical cancer screening program using HPV test in one million Turkish women. Int J Cancer 2018; 142: 1952-1958.
 
10.
Rebolj M, Rimmer J, Denton K, et al. Primary cervical screening with high risk human papillomavirus testing: observational study. BMJ 2019; 364: 1240.
 
11.
Polman NJ, Snijders PJF, Kenter GG, et al. HPV-based cervical screening: rationale, expectations and future perspectives of the new Dutch screening programme. Prev Med 2019; 119: 108-117.
 
12.
Bergengren L, Lillsunde-Larsson G, Helenius G, et al. HPV-based screening for cervical cancer among women 55-59 years of age. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0217108.
 
13.
Zelazik M, Michalska A, Radowicz-Chil A, et al. Unified cytological reports determine the clinical management. Medical Studies 2019; 35: 147-152.
 
14.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: A Historical Perspective. Acta Cytol 2017; 61: 359-372.
 
15.
Polskie Towarzystwo Ginekologiczne: Rekomendacje PTG dotycz¹ce diagnostyki, profilaktyki i wczesnego wykrywania raka szyjki macicy. Ginekol Pol 2006; 77: 655-659.
 
16.
StataCorp. 2017. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
 
17.
Baena A, Guevara E, Almonte M, et al. Factors related to inter-observer reproducibility of conventional Pap smear cytology: a multilevel analysis of smear and laboratory characteristics. Cytopathology 2017; 28: 192-202.
 
18.
Klinkhamer PJ, Vooijs GP, de Haan AF. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 215-218.
 
19.
da Fonseca AJ, Murari RS, Moraes IS, et al. Validity of cervicovaginal cytology in a Brazilian State with high incidence rate of cervical cancer. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014; 36: 347-352.
 
20.
Sørbye SW, Suhrke P, Revå BW, et al. Accuracy of cervical cytology: comparison of diagnoses of 100 Pap smears read by four pathologists at three hospitals in Norway. BMC Clin Pathol 2017; 17: 18.
 
21.
Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500-1505.
 
22.
Türkmen IC, Başsüllü N, Bingöl B, et al. Interobserver variability in cervical smears from patients with a history of abnormal cytology: comparison of conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology. Erciyes Med J 2013; 1: 13-17.
 
23.
Wright TC Jr, Stoler MH, Behrens CM, et al. Interlaboratory variation in the performance of liquid-based cytology: insights from the ATHENA trial. Int J Cancer 2014; 134: 1835-1843.
 
eISSN:2084-9869
ISSN:1233-9687
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top