Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Clinical Pathology logoLink to Journal of Clinical Pathology
. 1987 Apr;40(4):438–442. doi: 10.1136/jcp.40.4.438

False negative rate in cervical cytology.

Y van der Graaf, G P Vooijs
PMCID: PMC1140979  PMID: 3584488

Abstract

All women in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, with a histological diagnosis of severe dysplasia, or carcinoma in situ, or invasive carcinoma were investigated to see whether they had participated in a population screening programme. Within two years of diagnosis of a negative cervical smear, 45 women were found to have histologically confirmed severe epithelial abnormality of the cervix. From the same population as these apparently false negative cases, the number of true positive cases was available, and hence the sensitivity of cervical screening for severe dysplasia, or carcinoma in situ, and invasive carcinoma could be assessed. This was found to be 83% after two years. The laboratory procedures which led to the high sensitivity for the cervical cytodiagnosis were analysed. Experienced sample takers and cytotechnologists are very important and can reduce sample and screening errors. A good administrative system is necessary to guarantee proper follow up for women with abnormal findings in their cervical smears.

Full text

PDF
438

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Beilby J. O., Bourne R., Guillebaud J., Steele S. T. Paired cervical smears: a method of reducing the false-negative rate in population screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Jul;60(1):46–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Benoit A. G., Krepart G. V., Lotocki R. J. Results of prior cytologic screening in patients with a diagnosis of Stage I carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Mar 1;148(5):690–694. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(84)90775-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berkeley A. S., LiVolsi V. A., Schwartz P. E. Advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix with recent normal Papanicolaou tests. Lancet. 1980 Aug 16;2(8190):375–376. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(80)90378-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cecchini S., Palli D., Casini A. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. An estimate of screening error rates and optimal screening interval. Acta Cytol. 1985 May-Jun;29(3):329–333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Coppleson L. W., Brown B. Estimation of the screening error rate from the observed detection rates in repeated cercival cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Aug 1;119(7):953–958. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(74)90013-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cotton R. E., Elwood J. M., Jones G. M. Results of delayed follow up of abnormal cervical smears. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Mar 22;292(6523):799–800. doi: 10.1136/bmj.292.6523.799-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Davis J. R., Hindman W. M., Paplanus S. H., Trego D. C., Wiens J. L., Suciu T. N. Value of duplicate smears in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 1981 Sep-Oct;25(5):533–538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Day N. E. Estimating the sensitivity of a screening test. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1985 Dec;39(4):364–366. doi: 10.1136/jech.39.4.364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Elias A., Linthorst G., Bekker B., Vooijs P. G. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol. 1983 May-Jun;27(3):225–229. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellman R., Chamberlain J. Improving the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1984 Oct;34(267):537–542. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Elwood J. M., Cotton R. E., Johnson J., Jones G. M., Curnow J., Beaver M. W. Are patients with abnormal cervical smears adequately managed? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Oct 6;289(6449):891–894. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6449.891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Figge D. C., Bennington J. L., Schweid A. I. Cervical cancer after initial negative and atypical vaginal cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970 Oct 1;108(3):422–428. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(70)90425-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hakama M., Chamberlain J., Day N. E., Miller A. B., Prorok P. C. Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer. Br J Cancer. 1985 Oct;52(4):669–673. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1985.241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Husain O. A. Quality control in cytological screening for cervical cancer. Tumori. 1976 May-Jun;62(3):303–314. doi: 10.1177/030089167606200308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Luthy D. A., Briggs R. M., Buyco A., Eschenbach A. Cervical cytology. Increased sensitivity with a second cervical smear. Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Jun;51(6):713–717. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Morell N. D., Taylor J. R., Snyder R. N., Ziel H. K., Saltz A., Willie S. False-negative cytology rates in patients in whom invasive cervical cancer subsequently developed. Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Jul;60(1):41–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Paterson M. E., Peel K. R., Joslin C. A. Cervical smear histories of 500 women with invasive cervical cancer in Yorkshire. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Oct 6;289(6449):896–898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.289.6449.896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Rubio C. A. False negatives in cervical cytology: can they be avoided? Acta Cytol. 1981 Mar-Apr;25(2):199–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rylander E. Negative smears in women developing invasive cervical cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1977;56(2):115–118. doi: 10.3109/00016347709158352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Sedlis A., Walters A. T., Balin H., Hontz A., Lo Sciuto L. Evaluation of two simultaneously obtained cervical cytological smears. Acta Cytol. 1974 Jul-Aug;18(4):291–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Shulman J. J., Hontz A., Sedlis A., Walters A. T., Balin H., LoScuito L. The Pap smear: take two. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975 Apr 15;121(8):1024–1028. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(16)33584-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Vooijs G. P., Elias A., van der Graaf Y., Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1986 May-Jun;30(3):251–257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vooijs P. G., Elias A., van der Graaf Y., Veling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1985 May-Jun;29(3):323–328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. van der Graaf Y., Klinkhamer P. J., Vooijs G. P. Effect of population screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Prev Med. 1986 Nov;15(6):582–590. doi: 10.1016/0091-7435(86)90063-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Pathology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES