Involving the General Practitioner In Screening For Cervical Cancer

In the Leiden region, the cervical cancer screening programme for the age group 35–54 years shifted in 1989 from one in which the smears were taken by specially trained paramedical personnel in health centres to a programme where the general practitioner is the smear taker. Hence, it is possible to compare the results of the two types of screening to evaluate whether involvement of general practitioners leads to better uptake of screening. In the 6 year period evaluated in this paper, the 3-yearly cytological rate per thousand for severe dysplasia or worse increased from 1.00 to 3.40; when stratified by age the positive rates were significantly higher. the histological rate per thousand for severe dysplasia increased from 0.60 to 2.09, and for carcinoma in situ from 0.35 to 1.36. All six invasive carcinomata were detected in the GP programme (0.31%). the general practitioner is clearly more able to attract the ‘high-risk’groups. Dans la reéion de Leiden, le programme de dépistage du cancer du col pour les tranches d'âge de 35–54 ans a été modifié en 1989. Le programme était initialement basé sur des frottis faits dans des centres de santé, par un personnel paramédical ayant suivi une formation particulière. Après 1989, le médecin généraliste est devenu le préleveur. II est done possible de comparer les résultats de ces 2 types de dépistage et d'apprécier si la participation des médecins généralistes a pour conséquence un meilleur dépistage. Au cours de la période d'étude, les taux pour 1000 de positivité cytologique pour les lésions graves (de type dysplasie sévère et plus) et par période de 3 ans ont augmenté de 1,00 à 3,40. Lorsque l'on stratifie sur l'âge, les taux de cas positifs sont significativement supérieurs. Le taux histologique des dysplasies sévères pour 1000 passe de 0,60 à 2,09 et celui du carcinome in situ de 0,35 à 1,36. Les 6 cas de carcinome invasif ont été détectés par le programme impliquant les médecins généralistes (0,31%). II est clair que le médecin généraliste est mieux placé pour dépister les patientes à“haut risque”. Im Bezirk von Leiden wurden die Abstriche der 35- bis 54 jährigen vor 1989 von speziell ausgebildeten Hilfskräften in Gesundheitszentren hergestellt, während diese Aufgabe dann von den Allgemeinmedizinern übernommen wurde. Dies erlaubt einen Vergleich zwische den Präparaten von zwei jeweils 3 Jahre umfassenden Perioden. Der Anteil schwerer Dysplasien und stärkerer Veränderungen nahm von 1.00 auf 3.40 pro Tausend zu. Der histologische Anteil der schweren Dysplasien erhöhte sich von 0.60 auf 2.09 und der der Carcinomata in situ von 0.35 auf 1.36. Alle 6 nachgewiesenen invasiven Carcinome wurden in den Abstrichen der Allgemeinmediziner entdeckt (0.31%_o). Damit ist klar, daß die Allgemeinmediziner die Risikogruppen besser zu erfassen vermögen.     

Should the laboratory assess the sampling adequacy of cervical smears?

Should the laboratory assess the sampling adequacy of cervical smears? The results of a questionnaire answered by 14 out of the 18 NHS laboratories in Scotland reporting cervical smears showed that, since the publication of Guidelines for Judging the Adequacy of a Cervical Smear, by the British Society for Clinical Cytology (BSCC), rates of unsatisfactory smears had risen from a mean of 3.3% to 6.5%, with some laboratories reporting rates of over 10%. Four laboratories followed the guidelines closely in requiring the presence of two indicators of sampling of the transformation zone, i.e. endocervical cells, metaplastic cells or endocervical mucus. Seven laboratories required one indicator either in all smears or in a subset, whilst three did not require any indicator at all. The laboratories observing the guidelines closely had a higher mean unsatisfactory rate than those partially observing them. The main impediment to the full implementation of the BSCC guidelines appeared to be fear of an unmanageably high unsatisfactory smear rate. The accuracy of the assessment of adequacy is questioned, as is the cost effectiveness of doing so.     

Effect of regular 3-yearly screening on the incidence of cervical smears: the Leiden experience

The effect of regular 3-yearly screening over a period of 12 years, on the incidence of cervical cancer in 25,000 women aged 35-54 years, is examined. The rate of squamous cell carcinoma decreased from 0.38 per 1000 women in the first round to zero in the fourth round. Similarly, the rate of carcinoma in situ declined from 1.69 per 1000 women in the first round to 0.35 per 1000 in the fourth round. The rates of severe dysplasia showed no decline. Cytologic under diagnosis of carcinoma-in-situ and cervical carcinoma increased with each round. Widowed and divorced women and those living in urban areas were identified as high risk groups.     

Personal view. Is it reality or an illusion that liquid‐based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears?

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been heralded as the way forward for cervical screening, and as the answer to many of its problems. It is already used as a sole method of cell preparation in many private clinics in the UK. It is being used for colposcopy smears in many NHS clinics and is now being piloted for primary screening in three screening centres in England, as well as one in Scotland and one in Wales. LBC has been welcomed as a new technology because it deals with the problem of specimen adequacy at source, removing responsibility for slide preparation and fixation from the clinician or nurse. It provides uniformly well-fixed preparations that are free of inflammatory exudate and blood, and seem easier to screen than conventional smears. There are many articles in the world literature suggesting that LBC is more accurate than conventional screening, and it is thought likely to reduce the number of false negative tests. The main reasons for piloting LBC in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) lie in its potential for reducing screening times and for reducing the numbers of repeats for inadequate tests. LBC is expensive in terms of equipment, capital costs, maintenance, consumables, training, technical preparation time, transportation and disposal of liquid media. Its costs could be justified if they were offset by the money saved from reduced screening time and repeat tests, but only if its accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity were proven to be equal to or better than conventional cytology. Although that is generally held to be true by the public and medical profession alike, there is very little hard evidence to support it.     

Inadequate cervical cytology—the need to audit individual smear takers' inadequate rates

In order to assess the performance of individual smear takers, their rates of inadequate smears, due to insufficient material, were monitored between 1992 and 1996. Although the yearly average clinic inadequate rates were all at acceptable levels, there was great variation of rates between smear takers, ranging from 0% to 19.5%. Identification of individuals with unacceptably high inadequate rates allowed them to undergo further training. Continuous monitoring of these inadequate rates can be used to measure levels of performance amongst all smear takers, but is particularly useful for new smear takers, or those who have required retraining.     

Communicating mild and borderline abnormal cervical smear results: how and what are women told?

The way in which women are informed about borderline or mild smear results can have a significant psychological impact. By means of a questionnaire survey of general practices in Nottingham, England, this study audited the means by which abnormal smear results were normally communicated to subjects and analysed the content of these communications. Transmitting abnormal smear results, either by letter or by telephone call, was typically the responsibility of the practice nurse, and communications varied widely in informational content. We conclude that the method and content of communications imparting mild or borderline smear results differs between general practices, even within a small geographical area.     

Rapid Cervical Cytology Screening

2030 Papanicolaou-stained cervical smears were submitted for rapid screening prior to routine screening; 30 seconds were allowed for each slide, and those thought to be abnormal were identified. The results were compared with those of conventional screening. All severe and moderately dyskaryotic cases were detected by the rapid technique, as were the majority of mild dyskaryosis and borderline cases. When a laboratory has a backlog it may be worth rapid-screening all slides in addition to routine screening, so that patients most at risk can receive prompt treatment.     

The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening

A major cause of false‐negative cervical smears is sampling error. We examined the results obtained with three different instruments in 126 608 smears from general practitioners. The spatula/brush combination yielded the highest proportion of smears showing cytological abnormalities, and the Cervex brush the lowest. Although not a randomized study, this paper highlights the shortcomings of the Cervex brush. We postulate a mechanical deficiency. Diagnostic accuracy rather than a high proportion of good quality smears should dictate the choice of instrument.     

ABC3 Part II: a review of the new criteria for evaluating cervical cytology in England

R.G. Blanks
ABC3 Part II: a review of the new criteria for evaluating cervical cytology in England The new Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 3rd edn (ABC3) includes radical changes in the criteria for evaluating cervical cytology. First, they include a new mission statement ‘the objective of cervical screening is to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality by screening with a high sensitivity for the detection of CIN2 or worse, whilst maintaining a high specificity’. Second, the original four performance measurement criteria where laboratories were examined further if they were below the 10th or above the 90th percentile has been changed to three and laboratories are only mandatorily examined if they fall below the 5th or above the 95th percentile. The old criteria related to the percentage of samples that were inadequate, the percentage of all adequate samples reported as moderate dyskaryosis or worse (equivalent to high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or cancer), the percentage of adequate samples reported as mild dyskaryosis or borderline (equivalent to low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or atypical squamous/glandular cells) and the positive predictive value. The new criteria are percentage of inadequate samples, positive predictive value and a new measure termed referral value. These changes mean that far fewer laboratories will require mandatory examination. Third, a raft of optional performance measures have been introduced to help laboratories examine their annual statistical return to the Department of Health in comparison with other laboratories. These measures have been designed to produce a more uniform national programme, and to help laboratories decide whether they are maximizing the benefit of screening while minimizing the harm, which is the goal of all screening programmes. This review examines in detail the new criteria and explains in more detail some of the thinking behind them.     

Costs and benefits of cervical screening. II. Is it worthwhile reducing the screening interval from 5 to 3 years?

A reduction in screening interval from 5 years to 3 years would greatly increase the cost of the programme, but would save few extra lives. The cost per life saved would be around £250 000 at 1995 prices, or around £8000 per life per year saved. There would in addition be human costs for the women screened. The opportunity cost of reducing the interval may be too great, since it is likely that the Health Service would achieve greater health benefits by investing the funds in other health care activities.     

Costs and benefits of cervical screening. I. The costs of the cervical screening programme

In 1991, the average total Health Service cost of a cervical smear, including follow up at the colposcopy clinic, was almost £22.70 in the Perth and Kinross district of Scotland. The average cost per colposcopy clinic visit was £30. The main cost elements were in general practice (55% of total) and the laboratory (33%), and most of the cost was for staff time.     

Cervical screening in Luxembourg: 1990–1999

For quality assurance purposes, the results of the 1990's obtained by the National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP) launched in 1962 were reviewed. The positive cytodiagnosis, the histologically verified in situ and invasive cervical cancers and the mortality rates were reported.     

Implementation of liquid-based cytology in the screening programme against cervical cancer in the County of Funen, Denmark, and status for the first year

As one of the first laboratories in Denmark (and Scandinavia), we have gradually implemented liquid-based cytology into the screening programme against cervical cancer in the County of Funen since 1 June 2001. This paper describes the course of the implementation period in the different steps in the screening programme, and the preliminary results obtained after the first year. We conclude that the new technique has improved the specimen and diagnostic quality. As a result of the reduction of the screening time, the workload in the laboratory is in balance although we have introduced a rapid review as a quality control. Besides, the reduction in the number of repeated cytological tests and follow-up visits at the gynaecologist means a saving for the screening programme as a whole. From our point of view the implementation of ThinPrep method is economically neutral.     

Interlaboratory Reproducibility In Reporting Inadequate Cervical Smears—A Multicentre Multinational Study

A set of 300 vaginal smears was interpreted by 13 cytologists from six European laboratories, who were requested to report inadequate and suboptimal smears. the set had been appropriately seeded to reach approximately 10% inadequate and 20% suboptimal smear frequency. According to the majority report, 230 smears were classified as adequate (76.7%), 43 as inadequate (14.3%), and 27 as suboptimal (9.0%). Agreement with the majority report ranged from 52% to 91% (average 78%). Kappa statistics for reporting inadequate smears showed a high level of agreement for five cytologists, and fair to good agreement for eight. In contrast, K statistics for reporting suboptimal smears showed fair to good agreement with the majority report only in five instances, whereas agreement was poor for eight cytologists. ‘Inadequate smear’rates may be used to compare the quality of smears received in different laboratories, as there is a high level of agreement among cytologists as to what constitutes an inadequate smear. However, this is not true for ‘suboptimal smear’ rates, and more precise reporting criteria must be defined and tested if an intermediate category is to be retained to report poor quality smears: more precise reporting criteria must be defined and tested if an intermediate category is to be retained to report poor quality smears. Une série de 300 frottis cervico-vaginaux a été examinee par 13 cytologistes appartenant à 6 laboratoires européens auxquels il avait été demandé de signaler les frottis inadéquats et sub-optimaux. Cette série de frottis a été constituée de façon à atteindre approximativement une fréquence de 10% de frottis inadéquats et de 20% de frottis sub-optimaux. Si I'on considère les réponses faites par la majorité des cytologistes, 230 frottis ont été classés adéquats (76,7%), 43 classés inadéquats (14,3%), et 27 comme sub-optimaux (9,0%). La concordance avec les réponses de la majorité des cytologistes varie de 52%à 91% (moyenne 78%). Concernant le signalement des frottis inadéquats, le test Kappa est excellent pour 5 cytologistes et moyen à bon pour les 8 autres. Au contraire, pour le signalement des frottis sub-optimaux, le test Kappa montre un accord moyen à bon avec les réponses de la majorité seulement dans 5 cas alors que I'agrément est mauvais pour 8 cytologistes. La fréquence des frottis inadéquats peut être utilisée pour comparer la qualité de prélèvement du frottis dans différents laboratoires, alors que les comparaisons de la fréquence des frottis sub-optimaux sont discutables, du fait d'un biais de diagnostic évident. Des critéres plus précis pour le signalement des frottis sub-optimaux doivent étre définis et testés si cette catégorie doit être retenue pour rapporter les frottis de mauvaise qualité. 300 Abstriche wurden durch 13 Zytologen aus 6 europäischen Laboratorien hinsichtlich der Kriterien ‘unbrauchbar’und ‘suboptimal’beurteilt. Die Sammlung enthielt etwa 10% unbrauchbare und 20% suboptimale Präparate. Mehrheitlich wurden 230 Abstriche als auswertbar (76,7%), 43 als unbrauchbar (14,3%) und 27 als suboptimal (9,0%) bezeichnet. Die Statistik ergab hinsichtlich der unbrauchbaren Abstriche eine ausgezeichnete Ûbereinstimmung für 5 und eine gute Ûbereinstim-mung für 8 Zytologen. Demgegenüber zeigte sich hinsichtlich der Beurteilung suboptimal nur 5mal eine gute und 8mal eine schlechte Ûbereinstimmung. Damit ist die Kategorie suboptimal ungeeignet zum Vergleich und bedarf einer genaueren Definition wenn sie für die Qualitätskontrolle eingesetzt werden soll.     

An audit of cervical cytology in HIV‐positive women

O. E. O. Hotonu, J. Hussey, M. S. T. Basta, V. Wadehra, P. Cross and M. L. Schmid
An audit of cervical cytology in HIV‐positive women Objective: To investigate whether a cohort of human immunodeficiency virus‐positive (HIV+) women were having annual cervical cytology as recommended by the English National Health Service cervical screening programme (NHSCSP) guidelines. Methods: An audit of cervical cytology in an HIV+ cohort of 187 women by obtaining their last cervical cytology result and recall from local cytology services. Results: Of the 187 women in the audit, two were ineligible, leaving 185 women, 167 (90.3%) of whom were aged 25–64 years and eligible for screening. Of the 185 women, 126 (68.1%) had a cytology history, 50 (27%) had never had cervical cytology and nine (4.9%) had inadequate details to ascertain whether or not they had a cytology history. Of the 126 with a cytology record, 34 (27%) had a current cytological abnormality, which was low grade in 25 (19.8%) and high grade in nine (7.1%). Among women aged 25–64 years attending the clinic, these percentages were significantly higher than expected for England as a whole (P < 0.001). Of 126 women with a cytology record, 29 (23%) were overdue for their recall date and of these the previous test was abnormal in 14 (48.3%). Cytology tests were taken within the community setting in 61 (48.4%), whereas 65 (51.6%) were seen either at an HIV sexual health clinic or were under colposcopy follow‐up. Of 91 women with negative cytology only 50 (54.9%) were recommended for repeat in 12 months. Conclusion: This audit demonstrates a high rate of cytological abnormalities among HIV+ women compared with the screening population at large. Implementation of NHSCSP guidelines has been difficult and requires improved care pathways between HIV clinics, primary care and laboratories.     

The development of the referral outcome diagram and an analysis of laboratory cancer detection rates in the English NHS cervical screening programme – is there an optimum level of detection of CIN 1 and CIN 2 lesions?

Objective: To use routine annual data from the English cervical screening laboratories (KC61 returns) to evaluate individual laboratory return characteristics with particular reference to factors associated with sensitivity and specificity. Methods: A graphical technique has been developed using data on referral to colposcopy and histological outcomes called a referral outcome (ROUT) diagram. The average grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) detected (the mean CIN score, MCS) is plotted against the odds of a false‐positive referral. Further analysis has been conducted to examine the relationship between the MCS and screen‐detected invasive cancer rate. Results: There are large variations in ROUT diagram positions of individual laboratories and the diagram can be used to identify laboratories for further investigation. These variations are strongly influenced by substantial differences in the rate of low‐grade referrals and the MCS (and positive predictive value) are inversely related to the referral rate for low‐grade cytology (P < 0.001). There is a strong association between high MCS values and increased screen‐detected cancer rates (P < 0.001) particularly above an MCS of 2.2. The data can be re‐formulated in terms of CIN 2 and CIN 3 only where it can be shown that the invasive cancer rate rapidly increases if the numbers of CIN 2 lesions detected drops below 50% of the number of CIN 3 lesions. Given the complexity of cervical screening this may best be viewed as a hypothesis generating observation, best tested by interventional studies. Conclusions: The ROUT diagram represents a new and potentially interesting way of presenting annual return data. The national programme in England needs to balance the prevention of cancer against too many unnecessary referrals to colposcopy and the ROUT diagram, and associated data given in this paper may help toward this. Further research is required including examining the role of referral policy and threshold criteria in influencing low‐grade referrals and the relationship between MCS and cancer detection rate.     

BSCC,Bethesda or other? Terminology in cervical cytology European panel discussion

The European panel agreed that reproducibility and translatability of terminology in cervical cytology were essential, arguing well for harmonization of reporting systems. The majority at this meeting use a modification of the Bethesda system (BS). Local modifications involved reporting subcategories within high grade and low grade lesions, which would not alter the overall translatability of their systems both with each other and BS. The majority agree that low grade lesions with and without koilocytosis should be managed similarly as should high grade lesions (moderate dysplasia/CIN2 or worse). Those systems linking moderate dysplasia with mild rather than severe dysplasia would need to define moderate dysplasia as such, if their results were to be translatable, which would be preferable to their using a different definition of low grade and high grade lesions. Translation between systems might anyway be facilitated by reporting moderate dysplasia as a subcategory within high grade, which was favoured by most of those present. Therefore, there is no need for exact agreement of terminology if broad principles are agreed. This useful discussion adds weight to the British Society for Clinical Cytology recommendation that the new classification should be adopted by the UK National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme. If the new classification is adopted, the UK would join the European consensus opinion on terminology.