Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 1708577

[Quantitative methods in diagnostic pathology].

Abstract

The classical pathological diagnosis is of decisive importance for adequate therapy choice. Unfortunately, inconsistency in judgement of the same case and disagreement in diagnosis between different pathologists can be pronounced. Nevertheless, techniques of quantitative pathology largely improve the reliability of diagnosis because of their, in principle, high objectivity and reproducibility. Besides stereology, morphometry and flow cytometry recently also digital image processing, three dimensional laser scan microscopy and multimedial integrated image-database expert systems are becoming increasingly applicated. However, to gain maximum profit of these quantitative methods, sufficient measurement error handling is indispensable. In addition, concepts of standardisation and ongoing quality control should be available to assure confident measurements as a valuable aid in the diagnostic process.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J P Baak, J C Fleege. 1990. [Quantitative methods in diagnostic pathology].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1708577/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Increasing importance of cytological diagnostics in the Netherlands].

Cytological diagnosis has important practical clinical value, as shown by the observation that 54% of all diagnostic activities in pathology laboratories consist of cytological investigations. New impulses are, however, required to ensure ongoing developments. For example, from a scientific point of view, there appears to be little evidence-based information. A shift from case reports to systematic evaluation and from descriptive to prescriptive research is needed. The discipline of cytological diagnostics requires greater academic interest, and better guidance and structuring.

Cytodiagnosis↗

Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study.

The aim of this six-centre, split-sample study was to compare ThinPrep fluid-based cytology to the conventional Papanicolaou smear. Six cytopathology laboratories and 35 gynaecologists participated. 5428 patients met the inclusion criteria (age > 18 years old, intact cervix, informed consent). Each cervical sample was used first to prepare a conventional Pap smear, then the sampling device was rinsed into a PreservCyt vial, and a ThinPrep slide was made. Screening of slide pairs was blinded (n = 5428). All non-negative concordant cases (n = 101), all non-concordant cases (n = 206), and a 5% random sample of concordant negative cases (n = 272) underwent review by one independent pathologist then by the panel of 6 investigators. Initial (blinded) screening results for ThinPrep and conventional smears were correlated. Initial diagnoses were correlated with consensus cytological diagnoses. Differences in disease detection were evaluated using McNemar's test. On initial screening, 29% more ASCUS cases and 39% more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and more severe lesions (LSIL+) were detected on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.001), including 50% more LSIL and 18% more high-grade SIL (HSIL). The ASCUS:SIL ratio was lower for the ThinPrep method (115:132 = 0.87:1) than for the conventional smear method (89:94 = 0.95:1). The same trend was observed for the ASCUS/AGUS:LSIL ratio. Independent and consensus review confirmed 145 LSIL+ diagnoses; of these, 18% more had been detected initially on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.041). The ThinPrep Pap Test is more accurate than the conventional Pap test and has the potential to optimize the effectiveness of primary cervical cancer screening.

Cytodiagnosis↗