Premium
Results of multiple‐slide, blinded review of Papanicolaou slides in the context of litigation
Author(s) -
Renshaw Andrew A.,
Holladay E. Blair,
Geils Karen B.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
cancer cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/cncr.21319
Subject(s) - medicine , papanicolaou stain , context (archaeology) , papanicolaou test , blinded study , gynecology , surgery , cervical cancer , cancer , archaeology , history
BACKGROUND Multiple‐slide, blinded review has been endorsed by several cytology and pathology organizations as the most appropriate method for the review of cervicovaginal specimens in the context of litigation. This process involves review of litigation slides in a blinded manner by multiple independent cytotechnologists and the comparison of those results with those of validation cases that are comprised of known abnormalities with biopsy follow‐up. To the authors' knowledge, the results of this method have not been previously published. METHODS The results of the blinded review program at the Center for Cytopathology and Molecular Research at the Medical University of South Carolina for the years 1998–2004 were reviewed. RESULTS A total of 135 litigation slides and 122 validation slides were reviewed. The interpretations of these cases were found to be significantly different ( P < 0.001). Litigation cases were significantly more likely to be interpreted as either negative for intraepithelial lesion (NIL) or atypical squamous cells/atypical glandular cells (ASC/AGC) ( P < 0.001). The results appeared to be independent of the individual cytotechnologists involved. Approximately 10% of litigation cases were called at least ASC/AGC by all observers and 4% were interpreted as NIL by all observers. For litigation cases, ASC/AGC was found to be just as reproducible as high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. The results demonstrated that only 10% of litigation cases are regularly and reliably identified as abnormal, whereas a single review as performed by an expert cytologist can be expected to classify 56% of cases as abnormal. CONCLUSIONS This program suggests that a majority of litigation cases are not regularly and reliably identified as abnormal, and a single review will routinely overestimate the percentage of cases that are identified regularly and reliably. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.