Premium
Reliability and accuracy of reporting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in 15 laboratories throughout Italy: phase 1 of a national programme of external quality control in cervical screening
Author(s) -
BRANCA M.,
DUCA P. G.,
RITI M. G.,
ROSSI E.,
LEONCINI L.,
TUROLLA E.,
MOROSINI P. L.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.512
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1365-2303
pISSN - 0956-5507
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1996.39282392.x
Subject(s) - medicine , medical diagnosis , cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , quality assurance , medical physics , cervical screening , quality (philosophy) , reliability (semiconductor) , family medicine , gynecology , external quality assessment , pathology , cervical cancer , philosophy , epistemology , cancer , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
This paper reports results of a first phase of a pilot study to assess and improve quality of diagnoses in cervical cytological laboratories located throughout Italy. It represents the first phase of an External Quality Assurance programme (EQA). In the first phase, two sets of cervical smears representing a range of diagnoses were circulated among participating laboratories. Responses were recorded on a standardized form. Participants were asked to assess the adequacy of the smear and formulate a diagnosis. They were also asked to recommend management of the patient on the basis of the smear report and judge the degree of diagnostic difficulty of each slide. Crude index of agreement, unweighted and weighted kappas, diagnostic specific kappas, sensitivity and specificity as well as clinical indices of variability were calculated. In the second phase, two additional sets of slides were circulated after discussion of the first phase. There was striking variability between laboratories, both in terms of diagnoses offered and recommendations for management on individual slides. Assessment of the degree of difficulty of each slide was also very variable. Discrimination between CINII and CINIII was poor, confirming the choice of merging these two categories in the Bethesda classification. However, discrimination between CINI and CINII was also unsatisfactory. The results were discussed in workshops and it was possible to reach a consensus diagnosis in 35 of 40 smears. This study confirms the need for external quality control programmes.