Search

Objective: There is no other screening program close to the success rate of PAP test. Cervical cytology constitutes a large workload so that quality control in cervical cytology is important for the quality assurance of pathology laboratories., Material and Method: In this study, we collected the cervical cytology results from all over Turkey and discussed the parameters influencing the quality of the PAP test. The study was conducted with Turkish gynaecopathology working group and 38 centers (totally 45 hospitals) agreed to contribute from 24 different cities. The study was designed to cover the cervical cytology results during 2013. The results were evaluated from the data based on an online questionnaire., Results: The total number of Epithelial Cell Abnormality was 18,020 and the global Epithelial Cell Abnormality rate was 5.08% in the total 354,725 smears and ranging between 0.3% to 16.64% among centers. The Atypical squamous cells /Squamous intraepithelial lesion ratios changed within the range of 0.21-13.94 with an average of 2.61. When the centers were asked whether they performed quality assurance studies, only 14 out of 28 centers, which shared the information, had such a control study and some quality parameters were better in these centers., Conclusion: There is an increase in the global Epithelial Cell Abnormality rate and there are great differences among centers. Quality control studies including the Atypical squamous cells/Squamous intraepithelial lesion ratio are important. Corrective and preventive action according to quality control parameters is a must. A cervical cytology subspecialist in every center can be utopic but a dedicated pathologist in the center is certainly needed.

Objective: Inter-observer differences in the diagnosis of HPV related cervical lesions are problematic and response of gynecologists to these diagnostic entities is non-standardized. This study evaluated the diagnostic reproducibility of "cervical intraepithelial neoplasia" (CIN) and "squamous intraepithelial lesion" (SIL) diagnoses., Material and Method: 19 pathologists evaluated 66 cases once using H&E slides and once with immunohistochemical studies (p16, Ki-67 and Pro-ExC). Management response to diagnoses was evaluated amongst 12 gynecologists. Pathologists and gynecologists were also given a questionnaire about how additional information like smear results and age modify diagnosis and management., Results: We show moderate interobserver diagnostic reproducibility amongst pathologists. The overall kappa value was 0.50 and 0.59 using the CIN and SIL classifications respectively. Impact of immunohistochemical evaluation on interpretation of cases differed and there was lack of statistically significant improvement of interobserver diagnostic reproducibility with the addition of immunohistochemistry. We saw that choice of treatment methods amongst gynecologists varied and overall concordance was only fair to moderate. The CIN2 diagnostic category was seen to have the lowest percentage agreement amongst both pathologists and gynecologists. We showed that pathologists had diagnostic "styles" and gynecologists had management "styles"., Conclusion: In summary each pathologist had different diagnostic tendencies which were affected not only by histopathology and marker studies, but also by the patient management tendencies of the gynecologist that the pathologist worked with. The two-tiered modified Bethesda system improved diagnostic agreement. We concluded that immunohistochemistry should be used only to resolve problems in select cases and not for every case.