The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests - Measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial

Citation
Aa. Renshaw et al., The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests - Measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial, CANC CYTOP, 93(2), 2001, pp. 106-110
Citations number
18
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology,"Onconogenesis & Cancer Research
Journal title
CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY
ISSN journal
0008-543X → ACNP
Volume
93
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
106 - 110
Database
ISI
SICI code
0008-543X(20010425)93:2<106:THFROR>2.0.ZU;2-X
Abstract
BACKGROUND, Routine quality control rescreening often is used to calculate the false-negative rate (FNR) of gynecologic cytology. Theoretic analysis s uggests that this is not appropriate, due to the high FNR of rescreening an d the inability to actually measure it. The authors sought to determine the FNR of manual rescreening in a large, prospective, two-arm clinical trial using an analytic instrument in the evaluation. METHODS. The results of the Autopap System Clinical Trial, encompassing 25, 124 analyzed slides, were reviewed. The false-negative and false-positive r ates at various thresholds were determined for routine primary screening, r outine rescreening, Autopap primary screening, and Autopap rescreening by u sing a simple, standard methodology. RESULTS. The FNR of routine manual rescreening at the level of atypical squ amous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) was 73%, more than 3 times the FNR of primary screening; 11 cases were detected. The FNR of Autopap r escreening was 34%; 80 cases were detected. Routine manual rescreening decr eased the laboratory FNR by less than 1%; Autopap rescreening reduced the o verall laboratory FNR by 5.7%. At the same time, the false-positive rate fo r Autopap screening was significantly less than that of routine manual scre ening at the ASCUS level (4.7% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.0001). Rescreening with the Autopap system remained more sensitive than manual rescreening at the low g rade squamous intraepithelial lesions threshold (FNR of 58.8% vs. 100%, res pectively), although the number of cases rescreened was low. CONCLUSIONS. Routine manual rescreening cannot be used to calculate the FNR of primary screening. Routine rescreening is an extremely ineffective meth od to detect error and thereby decrease a laboratory's FNR. The Autopap sys tem is a much more effective way of detecting errors within a laboratory an d reduces the laboratory's FNR by greater than 25%. Cancer (Cancer Cytopath ol) 2001;93:106-110. (C) 2001 American Cancer Society.