ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Why are Polish women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer after negative cytology in the organized screening programme – a pilot reevaluation of negative Pap smears preceding diagnoses of interval cancers
1
Department of Cancer Prevention, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
2
Warsaw PhD School in Natural and BioMedical Sciences, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Diagnostics, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland
4
Polish National Cancer Registry, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2020-11-18
Acceptance date: 2021-01-31
Publication date: 2022-01-20
Pol J Pathol 2021;72(3):261-266
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
We have aimed to study reasons for reporting false-negative cytology results preceding diagnosis of interval cervical cancers (CC) in Poland.
Data on all Pap smears collected in the organised screening in 2010-2015 were retrieved from the electronic database and linked with Polish National Cancer Registry (PNCR) data. False-negative results were defined as those sampled and assessed normal up to 3.5 years before diagnosis of invasive CC. False-negative slides were then seeded among twice as many randomly selected slides from the same lab and reviewed independently by three expert cytomorphologists. New diagnosis was established when experts agreed on a result.
Of 48 selected false-negative slides, 1 case was diagnosed as a low-grade abnormality, 22 cases as a high-grade abnormalities, 3 cases as unsatisfactory for evaluation and 5 as no intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) by all three experts. There was no agreement in 17 cases. Percentages of agreement between experts was 64.6. Interobserver agreement rate was moderate with Fleiss’ κ values.
Our pilot study indicates evaluation errors as the main reason of false-negative cytology preceding interval CC in the organized screening programme in Poland. True lack of abnormal cells on the slide is the next reason.
Data on all Pap smears collected in the organised screening in 2010-2015 were retrieved from the electronic database and linked with Polish National Cancer Registry (PNCR) data. False-negative results were defined as those sampled and assessed normal up to 3.5 years before diagnosis of invasive CC. False-negative slides were then seeded among twice as many randomly selected slides from the same lab and reviewed independently by three expert cytomorphologists. New diagnosis was established when experts agreed on a result.
Of 48 selected false-negative slides, 1 case was diagnosed as a low-grade abnormality, 22 cases as a high-grade abnormalities, 3 cases as unsatisfactory for evaluation and 5 as no intraepithelial lesion of malignancy (NILM) by all three experts. There was no agreement in 17 cases. Percentages of agreement between experts was 64.6. Interobserver agreement rate was moderate with Fleiss’ κ values.
Our pilot study indicates evaluation errors as the main reason of false-negative cytology preceding interval CC in the organized screening programme in Poland. True lack of abnormal cells on the slide is the next reason.
REFERENCES (30)
1.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424.
2.
Didkowska J, Wojciechowska U, Czaderny K, et al. Cancer in Poland in 2017. Polish National Cancer Registry, Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention 2019.
3.
Antilla A, Aoki D, Arbyn M, et al. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Vol. 10: Cervix Cancer Screening 2005.
4.
Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening, second edition, IARC 2008.
5.
Stêpieñ M, Epidemiologia i profilaktyka nowotworów szyjki macicy. Kliniczne czynniki ryzyka zachorowañ. In: Nowotwory szyjki macicy. Centrum Medyczne Kszta³cenia Podyplomowego Warszawa 2011.
6.
Management of abnormal PAP smear – consensus guidelines of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in Poland Coordinating Centre, the Polish Gynaecologic Society, the Polish Society of Pathologists and the Polish Society of Colposcopy and Uterine Cervix Pathology. Ginekol Pol 2009; 80: 129-133.
7.
StataCorp. 2015. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
8.
Cai B, Ronnett BM, Stoler M, et al. Longitudinal Evaluation of Interobserver and Intraobserver Agreement of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Diagnosis Among an Experienced Panel of Gynecologic Pathologists. Am J SurgPathol 2007; 31: 1854-1860.
9.
Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study G. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500-1505.
10.
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.
11.
Stoler M, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL triage study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500-1505.
12.
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.
13.
Koss LG, Sherman ME, Cohen MB, et al. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System). Hum Pathol 1997; 28: 1196-1203.
14.
Barton SE, Jenkins D, Hollingworth A, et al. An explanation for the problem of false-negative cervical smears. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 482-485.
15.
Rokita W. [The diagnostic value of cytology and colposcopy in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia]. Ginekol Pol 2011; 82: 607-611.
16.
Kenter GG, Schoonderwald EM, Koelma IA, et al. The cytological screening history of 469 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix uteri; does interval carcinoma exist? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996; 75: 400-403.
17.
Renshaw AA, Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears. Cancer 1997; 81: 264-271.
18.
Kirschner B, Poll S, Rygaard C, et al. Screening history in women with cervical cancer in a Danish population-based screening program, Gynecologic Oncol 2011; 120: 68-72.
19.
DeMay RM. Cytopathology of false negatives preceding cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175 (4 Pt 2): 1110-1113.
20.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 2114-2119.
21.
Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the college of american pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1912-1916.
22.
Gupta S, Sodhani P, Sardana S, et al. Clinical determinants and smear characteristics of unsatisfactory conventional cervicovaginal smears. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 168: 214-217.
23.
Ruba S, Schoolland M, Allpress S, et al. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: screening and diagnostic errors in Papanicolaou smears. Cancer 2004; 102: 280-287.
24.
Spaczynski M, Michalska M, Januszek-Michalecka L. [Central Coordinating Center Summary of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Poland in the period from January 1st till December 31st 2008]. Ginekol Pol 2009; 80: 220-226.
25.
Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, et al. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials. BJOG 2010; 117: 1067-1073.
26.
Amies AM, Miller L, Lee SK, et al. The effect of vaginal speculum lubrication on the rate of unsatisfactory cervical cytology diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100 (5 Pt 1): 889-892.
27.
Baldur-Felskov B, Munk C, Nielsen TS, et al. Trends in the incidence of cervical cancer and severe precancerous lesions in Denmark, 1997-2012. Cancer Causes Control 2015; 26: 1105-1116.
28.
Bray F, Carstensen B, Møller H, et al. Incidence trends of adenocarcinoma of the cervix in 13 European countries. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Pre 2005; 14: 2191-2199.
29.
Wang J, Elfström KM, Andrae B, et al. Cervical cancer case-control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program. Int J Cancer 2020; 146: 1230-1240.
30.
Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR, et al. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States – a 24-year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2000; 78: 97-10.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2084-9869 |
| ISSN: | 1233-9687 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
