Cytology Laboratory, Gynecology Service, Dexeus Women's Health, Dexeus University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Cytology Laboratory, Gynecology Service, Dexeus Women's Health, Dexeus University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Rev Esp Patol. 2024 Jul-Sep;57(3):182-189. doi: 10.1016/j.patol.2024.03.005. Epub 2024 Jun 8.
To test the diagnostic concordance between microscopic (MI) and digital (DG) observation of cervico-vaginal (CV) cytology in a validation study of the technique.
Five cytotechnologists (CT) reviewed 888 routine CV cytology cases from the Cervical Pathology Unit of our center over a 2-week period of time. The cases were first observed by MI and at the end of the day the cases were observed by DG.
Agreement calculated using the Kappa index.
Most of the diagnoses corresponded to benign (64%) or inflammatory conditions (14%) and 24% corresponded to the intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (ILM) category. The overall kappa coefficient of concordance was strong (0.87). Among the different CTs it was almost perfect in two, strong in two and moderate in one. In 18 cases (10%) there were discrepancies between techniques in the category of ILM. In 10 (56%) cases there was an overdiagnosis in DG and in 8 (44%) an overdiagnosis in MI. Only in two cases, the diagnostic discrepancy exceeded one degree of difference between lesions, and they were ASCUS or AGUS for DG and CIN 2 for MI.
In this validation test in which routine cases during a two-week period have been used, observing the cases with both techniques on the same day, we have obtained a strong degree of concordance. The discordances obtained have not been considered relevant.
在该技术验证研究中,测试微观(MI)和数字(DG)观察宫颈阴道(CV)细胞学的诊断一致性。
五名细胞学技术员(CT)在两周的时间内对来自我们中心宫颈病理学部门的 888 例常规 CV 细胞学病例进行了回顾。这些病例首先通过 MI 观察,当天结束时通过 DG 观察。
使用 Kappa 指数计算一致性。
大多数诊断结果与良性(64%)或炎症(14%)相符,24%与上皮内病变或恶性(ILM)类别相符。总体一致性kappa 系数较高(0.87)。在不同的 CT 中,有两个为几乎完美,两个为强,一个为中度。在 18 例(10%)中,两种技术在 ILM 类别中存在差异。在 10 例(56%)中,DG 有过度诊断,在 8 例(44%)中 MI 有过度诊断。只有在两种情况下,诊断差异超过了病变之间的一个差异级别,分别为 DG 的 ASCUS 或 AGUS 和 MI 的 CIN 2。
在这项验证性测试中,使用了两周内的常规病例,在同一天观察两种技术的病例,我们获得了较强的一致性。获得的不相符结果并不认为是相关的。