Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs. 10% random rescreening

OBJECTIVE: To compare 100% rapid rescreening of cervical smears with 10% random rescreening as a method of quality assurance. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 5215 smears, randomly selected from smears reported as negative by cytotechnologists during routine screening, underwent 100% rapid rescreening by senior cytotechnologists. Ten percent of these smears, selected at random, were rescreened by other senior cytotechnologists. The gold standard was defined by cytopathologists, who rescreened all 5215 smears. After excluding unsatisfactory smears detected by cytopathologists, 4271 were included in the analysis. RESULTS: The 100% rapid rescreening method identified 69.9%, 95.7% and 100%, respectively, of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cases reported by the cytopathologists. The 100% rapid rescreening method showed a sensitivity of 73.5% and specificity of 98.6%. The 10% rescreening method showed sensitivity of 40.9% and specificity of 98.8%. CONCLUSION: One hundred percent rapid rescreening is an efficient method of internal quality assurance in cervical smear diagnosis. It can reduce the false negative rate and therefore can provide greater certainty to women who have received negative results. Well-trained cytotechnologists are able to identify abnormal smears in 1-minute rapid rescreening.     

Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme

Objective:  To evaluate the performance of rapid pre-screening (RPS) as a method of internal quality control in the cytopathological examination of cervical smears for cervical cancer screening.
Methods:  The sample consisted of 6135 cervical smears submitted to RPS and routine screening (RS) methods. The smears classified as negative in RPS and RS were considered final diagnoses, and were not, therefore, submitted to any additional review. The smears identified as suspect or unsatisfactory according to RPS were analysed separately by two different cytologists irrespective of the diagnosis reached in RS. Smears considered abnormal or unsatisfactory at RS were also reviewed. When both cytologists issued concordant diagnoses, this was considered the final diagnosis. Discordant results were analysed by a third cytologist and a consensus meeting was held to define the final diagnosis.
Results:  Taking abnormalities detected by RS as the denominator, RPS had a sensitivity of 63.0% for the detection of all abnormal smears and 96.7% for high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). When compared with the final diagnosis, sensitivity of RPS for all abnormal smears was 74.9% and for HSIL 95.0%. Of the 529 abnormal smears confirmed in the final diagnosis, 2.15% were detected only by the RPS.
Conclusion:  RPS is an effective alternative method of internal quality control with high sensitivity for the detection of more severe lesions. It also permits monitoring of the laboratory rate of false-negative results, and allows constant evaluation of the performance both of the pre-screening and RS cytologists.     

Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens

E. J. C. Manrique, N. L. A. Souza, S. B. N. Tavares, Z. B. P. Albuquerque, L. C. Zeferino and R. G. Amaral Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens Objectives: To compare the performance of the 100% rapid review method carried out in a mean time of either 1 or 2 minutes according to cytological final result, and to assess whether the presence of obscuring factors in cervical smear samples affects the frequency of false‐negative results. Methods: A total of 5 235 smears classified as negative (93.0%) or unsatisfactory (2.1%) at routine screening were submitted to 100% rapid review using mean times of 1 and 2 minutes. Results: Of the 5 235 smears submitted to 1‐minute rapid review, 88 were considered suspect and of these, 45 were confirmed as abnormal in the cytological final result. When the time used was 2 minutes, 67 smears were considered suspect, 44 of which were confirmed as abnormal. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in the 1‐ and 2‐minute reviews. In smears in which samples were satisfactory and had no obscuring factors, sensitivity and specificity were 64.2% and 98.9% and 61.5% and 99.5% for the 1‐ and 2‐minute reviews, respectively. In comparison, in smears in which the sample was satisfactory for analysis but partially obscured (50–75%), sensitivity and specificity were 64.7% and 99.9% and 70.6% and 99.8% for the 1‐ and 2‐minute reviews, respectively. Conclusions: The method of rapid review of 100% showed no difference in the detection of false‐negative results using the time of 1 or 2 minutes. The quality of the sample did not influence the detection of false‐negatives.     

Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening

In this prospective study, 27,014 Pap smears were selected for PAPNET review on the request of the referring practitioner or patient. Smears that were negative on routine manual screening were submitted for rapid rescreening. Smears considered normal after these two manual screens (n = 25,656) were reviewed using the PAPNET testing system. Routine manual screening identified 1340 (4.96%) of the smears as abnormal, and a further 18 (0.07%) abnormalities were detected by rapid rescreening. PAPNET review identified an additional 102 (0.4%) abnormal smears, including 10 histologically confirmed high grade lesions. The use of PAPNET testing following routine manual screening and rapid rescreening in tandem, enables cytologists to detect additional diagnostically significant abnormalities and reduce the rate of false-negative smears.     

100% rapid rescreening for quality assurance in a quality control program in a public health cytologic laboratory

OBJECTIVE: To verij5 the efficacy of the quality control (QC) program in a cytologic laboratwy with a rapid rescreening (RR) protocol. STUDY DESIGN: RR, according to the Turret RR method, of all samples initially screened as negative at the Laboratory of Cytology, Adolfo Lutz Institute, was performed. The slides were reviewed for 60 seconds. Suspect smears were fully checked by 2 reviewers to determine the final diagnoses. A total of 2954 sequential cytologic results were considered in this study. Of the 2954, 2568 (86.9%) were considered initially negative according to our internal QC, and these cases underwent RR. Also, 10% were randomly selected from these negative cases for full reviewing. The internal QC in our laboratory includes review of cases selected according to clinical and cytomorphologic criteria. RESULTS: Among the 2954 total cases, QC detected 386 (13%) atypias with final diagnoses reported according to The Bethesda System 2001 as follows: 82 (2.18%) low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs), 35 (1.18%) high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), 2 (0.06%) squamous cell carcinomas, 105 (3.5%) atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), 4 (0.12%) atypical endocervical cells (AECs) and 158 (5.3%) unsatisfactory samples. RR of 2568 smears initially considered negative selected 194 (7.5%) slides. Of the 194, 146 (75.3%) were negative, 28 (14.4%) ASC-US, 5 (2.6%) AEC, 1 (0.5%) LSIL and 14 (7.2%) unsatisfactory. Full review of a 10% random fraction of the 2568 cases interpreted as negative did not detect lesions but did detect 5 (1.95%) unsatisfactory samples. CONCLUSION: Internal QC used in our laboratory based on clinical and cytomorphologic criteria to select cases for review proved to be an efficient method of detecting HSIL and cervical cancer. The consensus basis of this program strongly limits the false positive and false negative rates and also provides subjects with continuing education. One hundred percent RR is more efficient than 10% full reviewing in detecting cervical abnormalities.     

Quality control of cervical cytology in high-risk women. PAPNET system compared with manual rescreening

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the PAPNET System with conventional rescreening of negative cervical smears in a high-risk population. STUDY DESIGN: Three thousand ninety-seven negative cervical smears from women with past history of cervical abnormalities were rescreened manually and with the PAPNET System. There were two reviews of PAPNET images: the first by two cytotechnologists with limited exposure to the instrument, and the second, limited to smears with discrepant diagnoses, by an expert in the use of the system. The remaining discrepant smears were submitted to a blinded microscopic review by a third party. The a priori consensus diagnosis was arbitrarily established when the result of two of the three reviews--manual, PAPNET and the independent third review--were concordant. The results of rescreening were compared with available biopsies. RESULTS: On manual rescreening of the 3,097 smears, 2,901 (93.66%) were reported as negative and 170 (5.49%) as abnormal. On the first PAPNET review, 2,938 (94.87%) were reported as negative and 150 (4.84%) as abnormal. There were 144 smears with discrepant diagnoses. After the second PAPNET review of these discrepant smears, the agreement between manual and PAPNET rescreening rose from 94.27% to 95.58%. A final, blinded review of 89 residual discrepant smears was used to establish consensus diagnoses. The diagnoses made by PAPNET-assisted rescreening agreed much better with the consensus diagnoses than did manual rescreening (Kappa = .61 vs. Kappa = -.32, P < .001). When compared with the results of 50 available biopsies, PAPNET-assisted rescreening also had a somewhat lower false negative rate (sensitivity 58.82% vs. 41.18%, P = .17) and a statistically significant lower false positive rate (specificity 63.64% vs. 36.36%, P = .01). CONCLUSION: PAPNET-assisted rescreening, when carried out by an experienced person, is more efficient than manual rescreening.     

Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing. A metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnostic validity of rapid reviewing (RR) as a quality control method in cytologic laboratories. STUDY DESIGN: Fourteen studies dealing with the detection of false negative Pap smears by RR were included in a metaanalysis. RESULTS: The overall additional yield of positive slides, expressed as the percentage of all reviewed slides, is: 0.18% (95% confidence interval [CI]: .14-.21) for all cytologic abnormalities; 0.07% (CI: .05-.09) for squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL) and 0.02% (CI: .01-.03) for high grade SIL. The false negative rate of primary screening, evaluated by RR, was 2.0% (CI: 1.5-2.6) for all cytologic abnormalities and 1.4% (CI: .8-2.1) for high grade SIL. The specificity of rapid rescreening was estimated as 97.2% (CI: 96.4-98.1). The positive predictive value of suspicion at RR is about 8.8%. Seven references contained historical data on full rescreening of a random sample of slides reported originally as negative. The results were also pooled and compared with RR. Complete rescreening is more sensitive, but if applied on only 10% of the negative workload, it would yield, on average, 4.7 times fewer extra positives, 5.6 times fewer SIL and 7.9 times fewer high grade SIL in comparison with RR of all sides. CONCLUSION: RR of all smears initially reported as nonpositive is a more effective and a fortiori a more cost effective quality control method in comparison with full rescreening of a 10% random sample.     

Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control

Rapid rescreening of approximately 30% of all negative and inadequate consecutive smears was carried out over a 26-month period. Smears (n = 24012) were rescreened using a × 6.3 objective only. Two minutes were allowed for each slide. Thirty-nine smears were found to have been incorrectly diagnosed as negative, a rate of 0.16%. This can be compared with the previous 26 months during which the traditional 1 in 10 random rescreening of unsatisfactory and negative smears had been carried out at a routine pace and with an objective of × 10. A total of 6866 smears were rescreened. Eleven were found to have been incorrectly diagnosed as negative, a rate of 0.16%. Rapid rescreening is as sensitive as 1 in 10 rescreening, and allows a greater proportion of smears to be rescreened. We propose rapid rescreening should replace the traditional 1 in 10 rescreening methods.     

Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice?

Rapid rescreening of all negative and inadequate smears is the quality control method of choice in the UK. The sensitivity of primary screening of laboratory and individual screeners are major indicators of screening quality and are dependent on the number of false negative smears found by rapid screening for their calculation. High sensitivity may indicate good quality primary screening or poor quality rapid review. Quantifiably high quality rapid rescreening is essential if these sensitivity figures are to be meaningful. A 12-month study was undertaken in routine practice using the prescreening mode to ascertain the sensitivity of rapid (partial) screening in our department. The final results of smears were compared with those of rapid prescreening. The calculated sensitivity ranged from 92-54% for high-grade abnormalities and 75-33% for all grades, revealing a wide range of performance between individual prescreeners. Rapid prescreening can identify individuals best suited to rapid screening in routine practice. By using these prescreeners only, the sensitivity of cervical screening could be raised. Rapid (partial) prescreening should be considered as the quality control method of choice.     

Partial Rescreening of All Negative Smears: an Improved Method of Quality Assurance In Laboratories Undertaking Cervical Screening

Partial rescreening was carried out on 9633 cervical smears reported as negative by standard screening. Each slide was ‘step-screened’ at normal speed for 30 s. Thirteen false negative smears were detected by this method. No false negatives were revealed by conventionally rescreening 10% of the same study group. the sensitivity of the method was assessed by ‘step-screening’ 100 known positive smears. of this group 92 were detected. the results indicate that partial rescreening is a sensitive method of quality assurance and should replace conventional 10% proportional rescreening, which is ineffective.     

Performance of 3 methods for quality control for gynecologic cytology diagnoses

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate performance and viability of internal quality control (QC) strategies in a public health laboratory of the state of S?o Paulo. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study was performed with 3 QC strategies to improve internal cytologic diagnoses: morphologic guided-list criteria (MGLC), 100% rapid-rescreening (100% RR) of negative slides ("turret" method) and 10% rescreening (10% R) of negative slides. Cases were examined at Adolfo Lutz Institute, S?o Paulo, Brazil, from 2002 to 2004. Histopathologic results, when available, were considered gold standard; cytologic consensus diagnosis was by 2 pathologists when histologic results were unavailable. RESULTS: MGLC selected 20.7% samples with cytologic atypias, 10% R selected 0.6% and RR selected 2.5%. Cytologic/histologic initial concordance was 57.4%, low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion false negative rate was 34.9% and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion false negative rate was 12.2%. After diagnosis, consensus concordance was 97.2%. CONCLUSION: The 100% RR and 10% R QC strategies detected more false negative cases in liquid-based cytology than in conventional Pap smears. The 100% RR strategy reduced the false negative results and allowed evaluation of individual staff performance. The 10% R strategy did not offer significant results. We concluded that association of MGLC and 100% RR strategies might improve cytologic diagnostic quality.     

Rapid rescreening of cervical smears as a quality control method in a high-risk population

OBJECTIVE: Cancer of the cervix is one of the commonest cancers in South Africa. Accurate cytological diagnosis is one of the prerequisites for an effective cervical screening programme and requires the implementation of appropriate quality assurance modalities. This study was undertaken to determine if rapid review of reportedly negative cervical smears is a useful internal quality assurance modality in an unscreened population with very high rates of cervical carcinoma. METHOD: Approximately 26% of all cervical smears received at the study institution between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2003, and initially reported as negative or inadequate, underwent rapid review. RESULTS: A total of 62,866 (26%) cervical smears out of 241,796 reportedly negative or inadequate cervical smears underwent rapid review. An amended report was sent out in 373 (0.59%) of these 62,866 cervical smears. This included 101 cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and high-grade atypical squamous cells (ASC-H), 143 low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, 54 atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and 33 atypical glandular cells that were not reported initially. The false-negative proportion for HSIL and ASC-H (combined) in this study was 5.76%. No squamous cell carcinomas were diagnosed on rapid review but one patient with HSIL/ASC-H on review had squamous cell carcinoma on biopsy. Three cytotechnologists had a lower sensitivity of primary screening and required retraining. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid review is beneficial as an internal quality assurance modality in an unscreened high-risk population and increases the detection of women with significant cervical lesions requiring treatment. The relatively low cost of rapid review compared with other rescreening modalities makes this an attractive option in low resource settings.     

Characteristics of high grade dyskaryotic cervical smears likely to be missed on rapid rescreening

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a type of high grade dyskaryotic cervical smear that is likely to be missed on rapid rescreening. STUDY DESIGN: Fifty high grade dyskaryotic smears that had originally been incorrectly reported as negative (FN) were admixed with 100 true negative smears. Each smear in the set was rapidly reviewed at least 40 times. The FN smears that were picked out on > 50% of screenings were compared with those that were passed as unremarkable on > 50% of screenings for features of the dyskaryotic cell population. RESULTS: Significant differences between the two types of FN smear were present in five aspects of the dyskaryotic cell population. A FN smear is more likely to be missed on rapid rescreening than to be selected for review if it has few dyskaryotic cells; if the dyskaryotic cells are small, with pale nuclei; and if they are scattered singly rather than in groups or syncytia. CONCLUSION: A type of severely dyskaryotic smear is likely to evade rapid rescreening as well as routine screening. This suggests that even when rapid rescreening is used as a quality assurance measure, the "zero-error standard" is unlikely to be attained.     

Differences between papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses

A case control study of women with carcinoma in situ (CINIII) was undertaken comparing Papanicolaou smears for which false negative reports had been issued with slides for which true positive reports had been made. the number of abnormal cells was the strongest differentiating factor. Where there were less than 50 abnormal cells on the slide, the odds of a false negative report being issued was 23.7 times greater (95% confidence interval 3.7-150) than when there were 200 or more abnormal cells. In false negative slides, the abnormal cells were likely to be not represented throughout the slide, present only as single cells rather than as groups, small in size and with finely granular normochromatic nuclei. We conclude that there are intrinsic differences between true positive and false negative slides. Given these characteristics, rapid rescreening of slides that are considered negative may not be an effective method of reducing the false negative rate.     

Estimating the sensitivity of cervical cytology: errors of interpretation and test limitations

The objective of this study was to estimate: (i) the sensitivity of cytologists in recognizing abnormal smears; (ii) the sensitivity of cervical cytology as a method of detecting abnormal smears among those obtained in the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Study subjects were 61 women with a histologically confirmed CIN identified through colpohistological and cytologic screening. For objective (i) new smears were taken from study subjects just before treatment, mixed with routine preparations, interpreted by unaware cytologists and then blindly reviewed by a group of three expert supervisors, who reached a consensus diagnosis. Cytologists classified as positive for squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) 30 of the 34 smears judged as positive by supervisors (100% of smears classified as high-grade and 67% of smears classified as low-grade SIL by the supervisors). Our approach, based on creating a set of smears with a high a priori probability of being positive, proved to be an efficient way of estimating errors of interpretation. For objective (ii), smears taken at the moment of diagnosis, just before biopsy, were also reviewed by the same supervisors. These CIN cases were identified among asymptomatic women independently of cytological findings and results are therefore not subject to verification bias. Among the 33 histological CINII/III, four (12%) smears had no atypical cells (three negatives and one unsatisfactory) at review. The same proportion was 26% (four negatives and one unsatisfactory) among the 19 histological CINI. No significant differences in smear content were found between the seven ‘false negatives’ and a sample of ‘true positives’ and ‘true negatives’ for a number of formal adequacy criteria (including presence of endocervical cells). Strong differences were found between positive smears taken just before biopsy and those taken just before treatment (in 11 women the first smear only was positive, while the opposite was never observed), suggesting an effect of punch biopsy in removing lesions.     

Rapid cervicovaginal smear screening: method of quality control and assessing individual cytotechnologist performance

AIM: To validate the method of rapid screening (RS) in the detection of cervical lesions and false-negative results as well as in quality control of cytotechnologist performance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The RS method was validated on Papanicolaou-stained and initially conventionally analysed vaginal, cervical and endocervical (VCE) smears collected in an opportunistic programme for the detection of cervical carcinoma. The study included 3680 VCE smears from the Department of Gynaecologic Cytology, University Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Zagreb University Hospital Center, Zagreb and from the Department of Clinical Cytology, Osijek University Hospital, Osijek. Histologically verified abnormal findings accounted for 10% of the study samples. Thirteen cytotechnologists, with no previous experience in RS, performed the test. Each slide was examined using the 'step' technique for 1.5 minutes, the findings were classified as negative or abnormal, and the abnormal ones were also classified according to differential cytological diagnosis. The results were compared with those obtained on initial screening. Abnormal findings from a group of initially negative findings were reanalysed using conventional methods to make definitive cytological diagnosis. RESULTS: RS yielded a sensitivity of 83.7%, specificity of 93.7%, positive predictive value of 62.4%, negative predictive value of 97.9% and diagnostic accuracy of 92.6%. Relative to the initial abnormal differential cytological diagnosis, the diagnostic value of RS increased with lesion severity [54.8%, 68.0% and 91.3% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I, CIN II and CIN III respectively]. RS detected 38 additional positive findings; 94.2% of these were atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)/abnormal glandular cells undetermined significance (AGUS) and CIN I. The rate of additional positive findings was 1.14% (38/3135). The false-negative rate of initial screening was 9.4% (38/406), and individual cytotechnologist sensitivity was 60.0-100.0%. CONCLUSION: RS could be introduced as an efficient method of quality control to improve the sensitivity of cytological screening as well as for quality control of cytotechnologist performance.     

An assessment of partial rescreening as an internal quality control method for cervical smears

Partial screening was performed on 10 800 cervical smears, comprising 8640 filed negative and unsatisfactory smears and 2160 newly received smears prior to conventional screening. Each slide was screened for 30 s and those considered abnormal were reviewed by standard screening. Partial screening led to the detection of 27 additional infections and 44 additional cytological abnormalities. These detection rates are better than those obtained with the traditional method of rescreening only a proportion of smears. Amongst the smears partially screened before conventional screening, partial screening detected 37-66% of infections and 22-71% of cytological abnormalities. We recommend the use of partial rescreening of all negatively reported smears as a method of internal quality control in cervical cytology laboratories.     

Utility of the in situ detection of HPV in Pap smears diagnosed as within normal limits.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical significance in normal Pap smears of HPV detection as determined by Hybrid Capture (HC) and in situ hybridization analyses. STUDY DESIGN: We studied 135 consecutive Pap smears as well as 46 other smears from high-risk patients each initially diagnosed as within normal limits. RESULTS: The 135 "normal" Pap smears were rescreened, and 6 (4%) where found to be either ASCUS or SIL. In the remaining 129 cases, HPV DNA was detected in 0% and 9%, respectively, using in situ hybridization and HC I. Upon rescreening the high-risk patients, nine (20%) were reclassified as having SIL/ASCUS; each was in situ hybridization positive, and eight were HC positive; six (67%) of these women developed SIL on follow-up. In the 37 Pap smears in high-risk women still within normal limits after manual rescreening, HPV was detected in 2% by in situ hybridization and 46% by HC; 6% of the HC-positive women developed SIL on follow-up. CONCLUSION: In situ hybridization rarely detects HPV in Pap smears diagnosed as within normal limits after manual rescreening. In situ hybridization is very effective in detecting rare, atypical cells in Pap smears diagnosed as within normal limits and, in a high-risk population, is predictive of SIL on clinical follow-up.     

Diagnostic value of nucleolar organizer regions (AgNORs) in brush biopsies of suspicious lesions of the oral cavity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to report on the diagnostic accuracy of AgNOR-analysis as an adjunctive diagnostic tool of conventional oral exfoliative cytology taken from suspicious lesions in our clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Cytological diagnoses obtained from brush biopsies of macroscopically suspicious lesions of the oral mucosa from 75 patients (final diagnoses: 53 histologically proven squamous cell carcinomas, 11 leukoplakias and other inflammatory oral lesions) and from 11 patients with normal mucosa as a negative control group were compared with histological and/or clinical follow-ups. Five smears were doubtful and seven suspicious for tumor cells in the cytologic report. Number of AgNOR's were counted in 100 squamous epithelial cell-nuclei per slide after silver-restaining. RESULTS: Sensitivity of our cytological diagnosis alone on oral smears for the detection of squamous carcinomas was 92.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value was 100% and negative 84.6%. The best cut-off value of the mean number of AgNOR dots per nucleus distinguishing benign from malignant cells was 4.8. The percentage of nuclei with more than three AgNORs had a cut-off level of 70%. Applying these methods to twelve doubtful or suspicious cytological diagnoses we were able to correctly establish the diagnosis of malignancy in ten cases of histologically proven cancers and to reveal benignity in two histologically proven cases. Thus we achieved a positive and negative predictive value of 100% each. CONCLUSIONS: Smears from brushings of visible oral lesions, if clinically considered as suspicious for cancer, are an easily practicable, non-invasive, painless, safe and accurate screening method for detection of oral cancerous lesions. We conclude that AgNOR-analysis may be a useful adjunct to other methods in routine cytological diagnosis of oral cancer that can help to solve cytologically suspicious or doubtful cases.     

Cytologic and DNA-cytometric early diagnosis of oral cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to report on the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral exfoliative cytology taken from white-spotted, ulcerated or other suspicious oral lesions in our clinic. In addition we checked DNA-image cytometry as an adjuvant diagnostic tool. Our hypothesis is that DNA-aneuploidy is a sensitive and specific marker for the early identification of tumor cells in oral brushings. STUDY DESIGN: 251 cytological diagnoses obtained from exfoliative smears of 181 patients from macroscopically suspicious lesions of the oral mucosa and from clinically seemingly benign oral lesions which were excised for establishing histological diagnoses were compared with histological and/or clinical follow-ups of the respective patients. Additionally nuclear DNA-contents were measured after Feulgen restaining using a TV image analysis system. RESULTS: Sensitivity of our cytological diagnosis on oral smears for the detection of cancer cells was 94.6%, specificity 99.5%, positive predictive value 98.1% and negative predictive value 98.5%. DNA-aneuploidy was assumed if abnormal DNA-stemlines or cells with DNA-content greater 9c were observed. On this basis the prevalence of DNA-aneuploidy in smears of oral squamous cell carcinomas in situ or invasive carcinomas was 96.4%. Sensitivity of DNA-aneuploidy in oral smears for the detection of cancer cells was 96.4%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative 99.0%. The combination of both techniques increased the sensitivity to 98.2%, specificity to 100%, positive predictive value to 100% and negative to 99.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Brush cytology of all visible oral lesions, if they are clinically considered as suspicious for cancer, are an easily practicable, cheap, non-invasive, painless, safe and accurate screening method for detection of oral precancerous lesions, carcinoma in situ or invasive squamous cell carcinoma in all stages. We conclude that DNA-image cytometry is a very sensitive, highly specific and objective adjuvant tool for the early identification of neoplastic epithelial cells in oral smears.