Montemor Eliana Borin Lopes, Roteli-Martins Cecilia M, Zeferino Luiz Carlos, Amaral Rita Goreti, Fonsechi-Carvasan Gislaine Aparecida, Shirata Neuza Kasumi, Utagawa Maria Lúcia, Longatto-Filho Adhemar, Syrjanen Kari J
Department of Gynecology, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Jan;35(1):57-60. doi: 10.1002/dc.20405.
We compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of false-negatives in cervical cytology. We tested RR performance with cytologists trained and among those without training. We revised 1,000 consecutive slides from women participating in an ongoing international screening trial. Two teams of experienced cytologists performed the RR techniques: one trained in RR procedures and the other not trained. The sensitivities in the trained group were Whole 46.6%, Turret 47.4% and Step 50.9%; and in the non-trained group were 38.6, 31.6 and 47.4%, respectively. The kappa coefficient showed a weak agreement between the two groups of cytologists and between the three RR techniques. The RR techniques are more valuable if used by trained cytologists. In the trained group, we did not observe significant differences between the RR techniques used, whereas in the non-trained group, the Step technique had the best sensitivity.
我们比较了100%快速复查（RR）的整体、转塔和逐步技术在宫颈细胞学检查中检测假阴性的性能。我们在经过培训的细胞学专家和未经过培训的细胞学专家中测试了RR的性能。我们复查了参与一项正在进行的国际筛查试验的女性的1000张连续玻片。两组经验丰富的细胞学专家进行RR技术操作：一组接受过RR程序培训，另一组未接受培训。培训组的敏感度分别为：整体技术46.6%、转塔技术47.4%、逐步技术50.9%；未培训组的敏感度分别为38.6%、31.6%和47.4%。kappa系数显示两组细胞学专家之间以及三种RR技术之间的一致性较弱。如果由经过培训的细胞学专家使用，RR技术更有价值。在培训组中，我们未观察到所使用的RR技术之间存在显著差异，而在未培训组中，逐步技术具有最佳的敏感度。
