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.     

Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening and the review of smears selected on the basis of clinical criteria, as a method of internal quality control of cervical smears classified as negative during routine screening. METHODS: A total of 3149 smears were analysed, 173 of which were classified as positive and 2887 as negative, while 89 smears were considered unsatisfactory. The smears classified as negative were submitted to 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening, and rescreening based on clinical criteria. The rescreening stages were blinded and results were classified according to the Bethesda 2001 terminology. Six cytologists participated in this study, two of whom were responsible for routine screening while the other four alternated in carrying out rescreening so that no individual reviewed the same slide more than once. RESULTS: The 100% rapid rescreening method identified 92 suspect smears, of which 42 were considered positive at final diagnosis. Of the 289 smears submitted to the 10% rescreening method, four were considered abnormal but only one was confirmed positive in the final diagnosis. Of the 690 smears rescreened on the basis of clinical criteria, 10 were considered abnormal and eight received a positive final diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The 100% rapid rescreening method is more efficient at detecting false-negative results than 10% random rescreening or rescreening on the basis of clinical criteria, and is recommended as an internal quality control method.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

False negative rate of cervical cytologic smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of the false negative rate (FNR) of cervical cytologic smear screening by rapid rescreening. STUDY DESIGN: A test set of 401 cases (311 originally diagnosed as negative, 74 as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS], 14 as low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL] and 2 as high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL]) were rapidly (30 seconds each) rescreened by five cytotechnologists with no prior experience in rapid rescreening, and the FNRs of rapid rescreening and primary screening were determined. These results were compared with each other and with the FNR of primary screening as determined by routine rescreening of all cases with no time limit. RESULTS: All five observers detected a different group of abnormal cases; only 9% of all cases originally diagnosed as ASCUS or worse and 43% of all cases diagnosed as LSIL or worse were detected by all five observers. Nevertheless, using ASCUS as the threshold for an abnormal result, the FNR of rapid rescreening fell into a relatively narrow range, 61-74% (mean, 68.2 +/- 5.0); using LSIL as the threshold resulted in FNRs of rapid rescreening between 25% and 38% (30.0 +/- 4.7). Each observer, using rapid rescreening, detected between one and three false negative cases; routine rescreening of all cases without a time limit detected five cases. The FNR of cervical cytologic smear screening, as determined by rapid rescreening, was 18.4 +/- 6.1% as compared with 14.8% by routine rescreening without a time limit. CONCLUSION: The FNR of rapid rescreening is relatively reproducible even though the individual cases identified varied between reviewers. The FNR of rapid rescreening is similar to that of routine rescreening. Rapid prescreening may be the most logistically simple method to determine the true FNR of a laboratory.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Imprint cytology of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Experience with rapid, intraoperative diagnosis and primary screening by cytotechnologists

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intraoperative imprint diagnoses of smears from sentinel lymph nodes that had been primary screened by cytotechnologists and to assess the most important causes of false negative (FN) imprint diagnoses. STUDY DESIGN: Material consisted of 429 imprints from sentinel lymph nodes in 211 breast cancer patients that were sent for frozen section examination over 13 months. RESULTS: The mean number of imprints/lymph nodes per patient was 2.02. The mean screening time per imprint was 3.6 minutes. Sixty-six sentinel nodes (16%) from 51 women (24%) were metastatic. Imprints and/or frozen sections were positive in 54 nodes (82%). Imprints were positive in 38 nodes, representing 70% of intraoperative positive nodes and 58% of the total number of positive nodes. Twenty-six of 28 (93%) FN imprints were due to suboptimal sampling. Four of 9 FN macrometastases did not contain diagnostic or suspicious cells/cell groups even on rescreening, whereas a few, and then only 1 diagnostic group were identified in 2/9. There were no false positives. CONCLUSION: Primary screening by experienced cytotechnologists is both rapid and reliable and enabled the diagnosing pathologist to concentrate on the frozen section. The major cause of false negative imprints is sampling, even in macrometastases.     

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.     

The use of the 'borderline' category in the reporting of cervical cytopathology in the UK: results of a survey conducted under the aegis of the British Society for Clinical Cytology

Objective: To determine how the ‘borderline’ category was used by cytopathologists in the UK when reporting cervical smears. Methods: A questionnaire was sent by email to members of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. Results: There is wide variation in the use of the ‘borderline’ category in the UK but the majority of respondents (77.6%) used it when reporting smears that were either on the borderline between negative and low grade squamous dyskaryosis (‘borderline ?low grade’), or on the borderline between negative and high grade squamous dyskaryosis (‘borderline ?high grade’), or on the borderline between negative and glandular dyskaryosis ‘borderline ?glandular dyskaryosis’). A significant minority (15.7%), however, did not use ‘borderline’ when reporting smears that showed an abnormality that was possibly high grade squamous dyskaryosis. A majority (79.1%) of respondents thought that it would be useful to have separate reporting categories for ‘borderline ?low grade’ and ‘borderline ?high grade’. Conclusions: There is diversity in the use of the category ‘borderline’ in the UK. The proposed revised BSCC terminology with separate categories for borderline ?low grade, borderline ?high grades and borderline ? glandular dyskaryosis reflects the opinion of the majority of respondents to the questionnaire.     

Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears

In a study of variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities, cervical smears with abnormalities of different severity were rescreened twice by 19 observers with an interval of six months. The observers focused on grading atypicality of squamous, squamous metaplastic and endocervical columnar epithelial cells; their results were compared (1) for the two screenings to assess intraobserver variability and (2) to "review" (final) diagnoses to assess interobserver variability. When the same observer rescreened a smear, 83.3% of the diagnoses did not differ more than one grade between two screenings; however, average intraobserver variability differed considerably for individual observers. The intraobserver variability was only slightly (not significantly) influenced by the years of experience in cytopathology of the observers. Intraobserver variability proved to be an important factor in incorrect diagnoses: 49.1% of the smears with false-negative and 52.9% with false-positive diagnoses at the first rescreening were correctly assessed at the second rescreening. Of all diagnoses made at rescreening, 80.9% were in agreement with the review diagnosis. The interobserver variability also showed considerable differences between observers; however, there was a strong influence of the experience of the observer on the interobserver variability. Atypicality grading of endocervical columnar epithelium by the observers showed a low correlation with the review diagnoses. The relatively low accuracy in the evaluation of this kind of epithelial abnormality is likely to be attributable to the low incidence of abnormal changes of endocervical columnar epithelium. The results of this study point to intraobserver variability as the main cause of false diagnoses. When wrongly diagnosed, severe epithelial abnormalities are more often underestimated than completely overlooked. Apart from training in cytopathology, the establishment of laboratory protocols for multiple screening of even minor abnormalities seem to be the most effective means of reducing the number of false diagnoses.     

Evaluation of PAPNET-assisted cervical rescreening

Evaluation of PAPNET-assisted cervical rescreening
We have compared the results of targeted manual rescreening of 1211 randomly selected smears with the results of PAPNET-assisted rescreening of 1613 cervical smears, containing at least 6.3% low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL). PAPNET diagnosis and the targeted rescreening diagnosis were compared with the initial report, issued on the corresponding smear. Reproducibility scores for inadequacy, presence of endocervical and endometrial cells, specific infections and squamous cell abnormalities were determined. The reproducibility scores for the diagnosis of inadequate smears and specific infections were lower with the PAPNET-assisted rescreening. The detection of squamous cell abnormalities was excellent for both methods (>0.95), with a higher detection rate for false-negative smears with the PAPNET testing system.     

Accuracy of liquid-based Pap tests: comparison of concurrent liquid-based tests and cervical biopsies on 782 women with previously abnormal Pap smears

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a liquid-based Pap test, the ThinPrep Pap test (TP) (Cytyc Corp., Boxborough, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), by comparing concurrent TP and cervical biopsy results on 782 patients who were referred for colposcopy because of previously abnormal conventional Pap smears (CPs). STUDY DESIGN: The ability of TP diagnoses of atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) to predict biopsy diagnoses of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was analyzed using chi2 and McNemar tests. RESULTS: The rate of agreement between diagnoses of SIL by TP and CIN by biopsy was 74.7%. ASC-US accounted for 16.0% of TP diagnoses. ASC-US had biopsy diagnoses of CIN 1 in 60% and CIN 2/3 in 12.8% of cases. For TP diagnosis of low grade SIL, biopsy diagnoses of CIN 2/3 were found in 13.5% of cases. For TP diagnoses of ASC-US and higher, the proportions of TP and cervical biopsies in comparable diagnostic categories were statistically significant (p < 0.001), with TP having sensitivity of 89.4% and positive predictive value of 89.7% for the detection of CIN. The false positive rate for TP was 8.1%, but rescreening confirmed the presence of abnormal cells in 51 of 63 (81.0%) cases of ASC-US or higher having negative biopsies. TP had a false negative rate of 8.3% and negative predictive value of 61.3%. Rescreening showed that most (77.6%) of the false negative TP specimens failed to have abnormal cells on the slides. CONCLUSION: For patients having previously detected cervical abnormalities by CP, concurrent TP demonstrated the following: (1) that it has high diagnostic accuracy for SIL, (2) that ASC-US was diagnostically equivalent to LSIL, and (3) that false negative TP for SIL can be attributed primarily to sampling rather than cytotechnologists' screening errors.