Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC task force summary

Euphemia McGoogan, Terence J. Colgan, Ibrahim Ramzy, Beatrix Cochand-Priollet, Diane D. Davey, Heinz K. Grohs, Albertje Marion Gurley, O. A.N. Husain, Martha L. Hutchinson, Ernest A. Knesel, James Linder, Laurie J. Mango, Heather Mitchell, Anne Peebles, Albrecht Reith, Max Robinowitz, Torill Sauer, Shigemitsu Shida, Diane Solomon, Theodores TopalidisDavid C. Wilbur, Kazuhiro Yamauchi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Issues: Cell Preparation Methods. Standardized fixation and optimal staining. Sampling of cervix, sampling error, homogenization of sample, subsampling. Assessment of liquid- based preparations: efficacy and economic impact. Training and transitional procedures before full implementation of new technologies. Criteria for Sample Adequacy. Clinican responsibility for collecting and providing representative sample to laboratory. Collection instruments, number of slides. Cellular content of samples: evidence of transformation zone (TZ) sampling, number of squamous cells present, obscuring factors. Screening issues. Consensus Position: The conventional cervical smear remains the standard method of cervical cancer screening but has limitations in individual test sensitivity and specificity. Sample takers should: (1) receive appropriate training in sample collection, (2) be held responsible for providing the laboratory with appropriate samples, and (3) have their performance monitored. The instruments used for sampling should collect cells from both the ectocervix and endovervix; optimally, TZ sampling, represented by the presence of endocervical or squamous metaplastic cells, should be identifiable in samples other than atrophic specimens. The adequacy of a specimen (as judged microscopically) does not guarantee that it is representative of the cervix. Each cytology report should include a comment on cellular content/adequacy of the specimen. Liquid-based preparations may overcome many of the inherent problems with the conventional cervical smear. Ongoing issues: We need further data on the cost- effectiveness of making two slides from cervical specimens and/or using two samplers rather than a single one. Do we have enough information to make recommendations as to the appropriate type of sampler to be used in particular situations, such as routine screening? What is the best method of screening for/detecting endocervical glandular neoplasia? How are such terms as unsatisfactory and inadequate defined in cervical cytology classifications other than the Bethesda System? What number and types of epithelial cells should be present (visualized) in a cervical smear or liquid-based preparation for it to be considered adequate? Do we need to have evidence of TZ sampling in specimens taken during the follow-up period after treatment of squamous intraepithelial lesion or after detection of endocervical glandular neoplasia? What criteria for obscuring factors, such as blood and inflammation, should be used in assessing adequacy? Cost-benefit analyses of utilizing liquid-based preparations are needed. Should we inform women about the technical details of the test methods available or chosen by the laboratory? Are women in a position to decide which method is the most appropriate to assess their cervical scrape sample? We need to obtain more information about the properties of proprietary liquid fixative/transport media with respect to inactivation of viral pathogens, tuberculosis and other bacterial pathogens and suitability for immunobiologic and molecular tests, etc. We need to obtain more information on the use of stoichiometric stains and the limitations of Papanicolaou stain for image analysis systems. The use of liquid-based preparation for nongynecologic cytopathology and ancillary tests must be considered, including criteria for adequacy. We need to obtain more information on the time required for and best methods of training experienced cytotechnologists to become competent at assessing liquid-based cervical preparations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)25-32
Number of pages8
JournalActa Cytologica
Volume42
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Fingerprint

Advisory Committees
Vaginal Smears
Epithelial Cells
Cervix Uteri
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cell Biology
Coloring Agents
Virus Inactivation
Fixatives
Selection Bias
Early Detection of Cancer
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Tuberculosis
Economics
Staining and Labeling
Inflammation
Technology
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Automation
  • Mass screening
  • Telemedicine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Histology

Cite this

McGoogan, E., Colgan, T. J., Ramzy, I., Cochand-Priollet, B., Davey, D. D., Grohs, H. K., ... Yamauchi, K. (1998). Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC task force summary. Acta Cytologica, 42(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000331532

Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy : IAC task force summary. / McGoogan, Euphemia; Colgan, Terence J.; Ramzy, Ibrahim; Cochand-Priollet, Beatrix; Davey, Diane D.; Grohs, Heinz K.; Gurley, Albertje Marion; Husain, O. A.N.; Hutchinson, Martha L.; Knesel, Ernest A.; Linder, James; Mango, Laurie J.; Mitchell, Heather; Peebles, Anne; Reith, Albrecht; Robinowitz, Max; Sauer, Torill; Shida, Shigemitsu; Solomon, Diane; Topalidis, Theodores; Wilbur, David C.; Yamauchi, Kazuhiro.

In: Acta Cytologica, Vol. 42, No. 1, 01.01.1998, p. 25-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McGoogan, E, Colgan, TJ, Ramzy, I, Cochand-Priollet, B, Davey, DD, Grohs, HK, Gurley, AM, Husain, OAN, Hutchinson, ML, Knesel, EA, Linder, J, Mango, LJ, Mitchell, H, Peebles, A, Reith, A, Robinowitz, M, Sauer, T, Shida, S, Solomon, D, Topalidis, T, Wilbur, DC & Yamauchi, K 1998, 'Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC task force summary', Acta Cytologica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000331532
McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I, Cochand-Priollet B, Davey DD, Grohs HK et al. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC task force summary. Acta Cytologica. 1998 Jan 1;42(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000331532
McGoogan, Euphemia ; Colgan, Terence J. ; Ramzy, Ibrahim ; Cochand-Priollet, Beatrix ; Davey, Diane D. ; Grohs, Heinz K. ; Gurley, Albertje Marion ; Husain, O. A.N. ; Hutchinson, Martha L. ; Knesel, Ernest A. ; Linder, James ; Mango, Laurie J. ; Mitchell, Heather ; Peebles, Anne ; Reith, Albrecht ; Robinowitz, Max ; Sauer, Torill ; Shida, Shigemitsu ; Solomon, Diane ; Topalidis, Theodores ; Wilbur, David C. ; Yamauchi, Kazuhiro. / Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy : IAC task force summary. In: Acta Cytologica. 1998 ; Vol. 42, No. 1. pp. 25-32.
@article{4189f554d8b346e5b32923419bf1b6bf,
title = "Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC task force summary",
abstract = "Issues: Cell Preparation Methods. Standardized fixation and optimal staining. Sampling of cervix, sampling error, homogenization of sample, subsampling. Assessment of liquid- based preparations: efficacy and economic impact. Training and transitional procedures before full implementation of new technologies. Criteria for Sample Adequacy. Clinican responsibility for collecting and providing representative sample to laboratory. Collection instruments, number of slides. Cellular content of samples: evidence of transformation zone (TZ) sampling, number of squamous cells present, obscuring factors. Screening issues. Consensus Position: The conventional cervical smear remains the standard method of cervical cancer screening but has limitations in individual test sensitivity and specificity. Sample takers should: (1) receive appropriate training in sample collection, (2) be held responsible for providing the laboratory with appropriate samples, and (3) have their performance monitored. The instruments used for sampling should collect cells from both the ectocervix and endovervix; optimally, TZ sampling, represented by the presence of endocervical or squamous metaplastic cells, should be identifiable in samples other than atrophic specimens. The adequacy of a specimen (as judged microscopically) does not guarantee that it is representative of the cervix. Each cytology report should include a comment on cellular content/adequacy of the specimen. Liquid-based preparations may overcome many of the inherent problems with the conventional cervical smear. Ongoing issues: We need further data on the cost- effectiveness of making two slides from cervical specimens and/or using two samplers rather than a single one. Do we have enough information to make recommendations as to the appropriate type of sampler to be used in particular situations, such as routine screening? What is the best method of screening for/detecting endocervical glandular neoplasia? How are such terms as unsatisfactory and inadequate defined in cervical cytology classifications other than the Bethesda System? What number and types of epithelial cells should be present (visualized) in a cervical smear or liquid-based preparation for it to be considered adequate? Do we need to have evidence of TZ sampling in specimens taken during the follow-up period after treatment of squamous intraepithelial lesion or after detection of endocervical glandular neoplasia? What criteria for obscuring factors, such as blood and inflammation, should be used in assessing adequacy? Cost-benefit analyses of utilizing liquid-based preparations are needed. Should we inform women about the technical details of the test methods available or chosen by the laboratory? Are women in a position to decide which method is the most appropriate to assess their cervical scrape sample? We need to obtain more information about the properties of proprietary liquid fixative/transport media with respect to inactivation of viral pathogens, tuberculosis and other bacterial pathogens and suitability for immunobiologic and molecular tests, etc. We need to obtain more information on the use of stoichiometric stains and the limitations of Papanicolaou stain for image analysis systems. The use of liquid-based preparation for nongynecologic cytopathology and ancillary tests must be considered, including criteria for adequacy. We need to obtain more information on the time required for and best methods of training experienced cytotechnologists to become competent at assessing liquid-based cervical preparations.",
keywords = "Automation, Mass screening, Telemedicine",
author = "Euphemia McGoogan and Colgan, {Terence J.} and Ibrahim Ramzy and Beatrix Cochand-Priollet and Davey, {Diane D.} and Grohs, {Heinz K.} and Gurley, {Albertje Marion} and Husain, {O. A.N.} and Hutchinson, {Martha L.} and Knesel, {Ernest A.} and James Linder and Mango, {Laurie J.} and Heather Mitchell and Anne Peebles and Albrecht Reith and Max Robinowitz and Torill Sauer and Shigemitsu Shida and Diane Solomon and Theodores Topalidis and Wilbur, {David C.} and Kazuhiro Yamauchi",
year = "1998",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1159/000331532",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "25--32",
journal = "Acta Cytologica",
issn = "0001-5547",
publisher = "Science Printers and Publishers Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy

T2 - IAC task force summary

AU - McGoogan, Euphemia

AU - Colgan, Terence J.

AU - Ramzy, Ibrahim

AU - Cochand-Priollet, Beatrix

AU - Davey, Diane D.

AU - Grohs, Heinz K.

AU - Gurley, Albertje Marion

AU - Husain, O. A.N.

AU - Hutchinson, Martha L.

AU - Knesel, Ernest A.

AU - Linder, James

AU - Mango, Laurie J.

AU - Mitchell, Heather

AU - Peebles, Anne

AU - Reith, Albrecht

AU - Robinowitz, Max

AU - Sauer, Torill

AU - Shida, Shigemitsu

AU - Solomon, Diane

AU - Topalidis, Theodores

AU - Wilbur, David C.

AU - Yamauchi, Kazuhiro

PY - 1998/1/1

Y1 - 1998/1/1

N2 - Issues: Cell Preparation Methods. Standardized fixation and optimal staining. Sampling of cervix, sampling error, homogenization of sample, subsampling. Assessment of liquid- based preparations: efficacy and economic impact. Training and transitional procedures before full implementation of new technologies. Criteria for Sample Adequacy. Clinican responsibility for collecting and providing representative sample to laboratory. Collection instruments, number of slides. Cellular content of samples: evidence of transformation zone (TZ) sampling, number of squamous cells present, obscuring factors. Screening issues. Consensus Position: The conventional cervical smear remains the standard method of cervical cancer screening but has limitations in individual test sensitivity and specificity. Sample takers should: (1) receive appropriate training in sample collection, (2) be held responsible for providing the laboratory with appropriate samples, and (3) have their performance monitored. The instruments used for sampling should collect cells from both the ectocervix and endovervix; optimally, TZ sampling, represented by the presence of endocervical or squamous metaplastic cells, should be identifiable in samples other than atrophic specimens. The adequacy of a specimen (as judged microscopically) does not guarantee that it is representative of the cervix. Each cytology report should include a comment on cellular content/adequacy of the specimen. Liquid-based preparations may overcome many of the inherent problems with the conventional cervical smear. Ongoing issues: We need further data on the cost- effectiveness of making two slides from cervical specimens and/or using two samplers rather than a single one. Do we have enough information to make recommendations as to the appropriate type of sampler to be used in particular situations, such as routine screening? What is the best method of screening for/detecting endocervical glandular neoplasia? How are such terms as unsatisfactory and inadequate defined in cervical cytology classifications other than the Bethesda System? What number and types of epithelial cells should be present (visualized) in a cervical smear or liquid-based preparation for it to be considered adequate? Do we need to have evidence of TZ sampling in specimens taken during the follow-up period after treatment of squamous intraepithelial lesion or after detection of endocervical glandular neoplasia? What criteria for obscuring factors, such as blood and inflammation, should be used in assessing adequacy? Cost-benefit analyses of utilizing liquid-based preparations are needed. Should we inform women about the technical details of the test methods available or chosen by the laboratory? Are women in a position to decide which method is the most appropriate to assess their cervical scrape sample? We need to obtain more information about the properties of proprietary liquid fixative/transport media with respect to inactivation of viral pathogens, tuberculosis and other bacterial pathogens and suitability for immunobiologic and molecular tests, etc. We need to obtain more information on the use of stoichiometric stains and the limitations of Papanicolaou stain for image analysis systems. The use of liquid-based preparation for nongynecologic cytopathology and ancillary tests must be considered, including criteria for adequacy. We need to obtain more information on the time required for and best methods of training experienced cytotechnologists to become competent at assessing liquid-based cervical preparations.

AB - Issues: Cell Preparation Methods. Standardized fixation and optimal staining. Sampling of cervix, sampling error, homogenization of sample, subsampling. Assessment of liquid- based preparations: efficacy and economic impact. Training and transitional procedures before full implementation of new technologies. Criteria for Sample Adequacy. Clinican responsibility for collecting and providing representative sample to laboratory. Collection instruments, number of slides. Cellular content of samples: evidence of transformation zone (TZ) sampling, number of squamous cells present, obscuring factors. Screening issues. Consensus Position: The conventional cervical smear remains the standard method of cervical cancer screening but has limitations in individual test sensitivity and specificity. Sample takers should: (1) receive appropriate training in sample collection, (2) be held responsible for providing the laboratory with appropriate samples, and (3) have their performance monitored. The instruments used for sampling should collect cells from both the ectocervix and endovervix; optimally, TZ sampling, represented by the presence of endocervical or squamous metaplastic cells, should be identifiable in samples other than atrophic specimens. The adequacy of a specimen (as judged microscopically) does not guarantee that it is representative of the cervix. Each cytology report should include a comment on cellular content/adequacy of the specimen. Liquid-based preparations may overcome many of the inherent problems with the conventional cervical smear. Ongoing issues: We need further data on the cost- effectiveness of making two slides from cervical specimens and/or using two samplers rather than a single one. Do we have enough information to make recommendations as to the appropriate type of sampler to be used in particular situations, such as routine screening? What is the best method of screening for/detecting endocervical glandular neoplasia? How are such terms as unsatisfactory and inadequate defined in cervical cytology classifications other than the Bethesda System? What number and types of epithelial cells should be present (visualized) in a cervical smear or liquid-based preparation for it to be considered adequate? Do we need to have evidence of TZ sampling in specimens taken during the follow-up period after treatment of squamous intraepithelial lesion or after detection of endocervical glandular neoplasia? What criteria for obscuring factors, such as blood and inflammation, should be used in assessing adequacy? Cost-benefit analyses of utilizing liquid-based preparations are needed. Should we inform women about the technical details of the test methods available or chosen by the laboratory? Are women in a position to decide which method is the most appropriate to assess their cervical scrape sample? We need to obtain more information about the properties of proprietary liquid fixative/transport media with respect to inactivation of viral pathogens, tuberculosis and other bacterial pathogens and suitability for immunobiologic and molecular tests, etc. We need to obtain more information on the use of stoichiometric stains and the limitations of Papanicolaou stain for image analysis systems. The use of liquid-based preparation for nongynecologic cytopathology and ancillary tests must be considered, including criteria for adequacy. We need to obtain more information on the time required for and best methods of training experienced cytotechnologists to become competent at assessing liquid-based cervical preparations.

KW - Automation

KW - Mass screening

KW - Telemedicine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031886655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031886655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1159/000331532

DO - 10.1159/000331532

M3 - Article

C2 - 9479321

AN - SCOPUS:0031886655

VL - 42

SP - 25

EP - 32

JO - Acta Cytologica

JF - Acta Cytologica

SN - 0001-5547

IS - 1

ER -