Renshaw Andrew A, Davey Diane D, Birdsong George G, Walsh Molly, Styer Patricia E, Mody Dina R, Colgan Terence J
Department of Pathology, Baptist Hospital, Miami, Fla, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003 Nov;127(11):1413-20. doi: 10.5858/2003-127-1413-PIGCIA.
Numerous studies address the accuracy or positive predictive value of cytologic interpretations for defined histopathologic entities. The reproducibility (precision) of cytologic interpretation is less well defined.
To establish and compare the reproducibility (precision) of cytologic interpretation in gynecologic cytopathology, as reflected in the educational program of the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology (PAP).
The pathologists' interpretations for both validated (25 745 responses) and educational conventional (14 353 responses) slides in the PAP program for 2001 were analyzed. The frequency of exact matches between the reference and pathologists' interpretation for each of the cytologic interpretative categories was identified, and the cumulative distributions of exact match rates were derived. chi2 Tests by reference interpretations were used for cytodiagnostic categories, least and most reproducible groupings, and high-grade (HSIL) versus low-grade (LSIL) squamous intraepithelial lesions.
Pathologists' interpretations of negative, Candida, Trichomonas, herpes, and LSIL were characterized by a high degree of exact matching, while interpretations of repair, HSIL, adenocarcinoma, and squamous cell carcinomas were characterized by a lesser degree of exact matching (reproducibility). Pathologists' cytologic interpretations of HSIL were significantly less reproducible than those of LSIL.
The cytologic interpretations of the most significant categories (HSIL, squamous cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma) are less precise than those of specific infection (Candida, Trichomonas, and yeast), negative, and LSIL categories. Cytologic interpretations of LSIL are made with greater precision than those of HSIL and may represent a more appropriate endpoint to measure the precision performance of gynecologic cytology laboratories.
众多研究探讨了针对特定组织病理学实体的细胞学诊断的准确性或阳性预测值。而细胞学诊断的可重复性(精确性)则较少得到明确界定。
在美国病理学家学会宫颈阴道细胞学实验室间比对项目(PAP)的教育计划中,确定并比较妇科细胞病理学中细胞学诊断的可重复性(精确性)。
分析了2001年PAP项目中经验证的(25745份回复)和教育用常规(14353份回复)玻片的病理学家诊断结果。确定了每个细胞学诊断类别中参考诊断与病理学家诊断完全匹配的频率,并得出完全匹配率的累积分布。采用参考诊断的卡方检验用于细胞诊断类别、可重复性最低和最高的分组,以及高级别(HSIL)与低级别(LSIL)鳞状上皮内病变。
病理学家对阴性、念珠菌、滴虫、疱疹和LSIL的诊断具有高度的完全匹配性,而对修复、HSIL、腺癌和鳞状细胞癌的诊断则具有较低的完全匹配性(可重复性)。病理学家对HSIL的细胞学诊断的可重复性显著低于对LSIL的诊断。
最重要类别的细胞学诊断(HSIL、鳞状细胞癌和腺癌)不如特定感染(念珠菌、滴虫和酵母菌)、阴性和LSIL类别的诊断精确。对LSIL的细胞学诊断比HSIL更精确,可能是衡量妇科细胞学实验室精确性能的更合适终点。