Cargando…

Surrogate indicators of sensitivity in gynecologic cytology: Can they be used to improve the measurement of sensitivity in the laboratory?

BACKGROUND: Measuring the sensitivity of screening in gynecologic cytology in real life is problematic. However, other quality measures may correlate with sensitivity, including the atypical squamous cells (ASC)/squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) ratio. Whether these other measures can function a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Renshaw, Andrew A, Brimo, Fadi, Auger, Manon
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2762693/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19876383
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.56359
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Measuring the sensitivity of screening in gynecologic cytology in real life is problematic. However, other quality measures may correlate with sensitivity, including the atypical squamous cells (ASC)/squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) ratio. Whether these other measures can function as “surrogate indicators” for sensitivity and improve the assessment of sensitivity in the laboratory is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared multiple quality measures with true screening sensitivity in a variety of situations. RESULTS: The abnormal rate, ASC rate, and ASC/SIL ratio were all highly correlated (r =.83 or greater) with sensitivity when the overall laboratory sensitivity was low (85%) but became less correlated (.64 or less) or uncorrelated when the screening sensitivity was higher (88% or 95%, respectively). Sensitivity was more highly correlated with the abnormal rate than the ASC/SIL ratio at low screening sensitivity. While thresholds could be set that were highly sensitive and specific for suboptimal screening, these thresholds were often less than one standard deviation away from the mean. CONCLUSION: The correlation of the abnormal rate and the ASC/SIL ratio with sensitivity depends on overall sensitivity. Standards to define minimum screening sensitivity can be defined, but these standards are relatively narrow. These features may limit the utility of these quality measures as surrogates for sensitivity.