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 Clinician 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 endocervix; 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 preparations 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.

ISSUES:The colposcope was developed in 1925 and is well established in clinical gynecologic practice for defining and delineating cytologically detected lesions mainly of the cervix but also the vagina and vulva. Additionally, various endoscopic procedures in gastroenterology, pulmonary and urologic lesions enhance the cytologic detection and histologic verification of precancerous and cancerous lesions. The cost-effectiveness of all these devices and their applicability, particularly in countries with a limited health budget, is a major issue. This task force considered aspects of the present state of the art and the challenges in the 21st century.CONSENSUS POSITION:Automated cytology can interface with colposcopic examination in a number of significant ways. Automated cytologic analysis of conventional cervical smears can potentially direct colposcopic examination by predicting the nature of a lesion, assist in determining which patients should receive colposcopy and, in some settings, thereby reduce the number of colposcopies. Potentially, various combinations of automated cytology and colposcopy may be used to generate screening protocols that might result in more effective and inexpensive screening. The role of cervicography, or high-resolution cervical photography, as a screening device remains to be defined. Sensitivity for high grade lesions is generally no greater than that in cytology, and specificity appears lower. The interpretation of cervical photographs in triage of mildly abnormal cytology may prove to be useful in countries with established cytology programs. In areas of the world where cytology screening programs are not in place, the interpretation of cervical photographs may have its most dramatic effect. Cost-effectiveness analyses are needed. There are, at present, insufficient data for the evaluation of speculoscopy, a procedure using chemiluminescent illumination of the cervix for visualization of acetowhite areas. Basic training in colposcopy should be integrated into the residency programs of obstetrics and gynecology. Criteria for the adequate training of colposcopists should be developed. Continuing education programs in colposcopy should be developed when they are not already in existence. The cost-effectiveness of integrating colposcopy as a primary screening technique should be evaluated. Following a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cytology result, colposcopically directed punch biopsy should be taken with or without endocervical curettage. This generally should precede the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP); however, in certain circumstances direct LEEP may be indicated. LEEP under colposcopic vision is an efficient way to treat an HSIL lesion of the cervix because the histologic extent and margins can be determined, unlike with laser surgery or cryosurgery. It is also more cost-effective than cold knife conization because general anesthesia and an operating room are unnecessary. Following LEEP, the endocervical canal should be examined colposcopically for any evidence of involvement. Lesions in the endocervix can then be removed with a different-shaped loop. Further research into Raman spectroscopy as a diagnostic aid in cervical pathology is needed, as is the use of micrococolpohysteroscopy for in vivo cytologic analyses, especially of the endocervical canal and transformation zone. Hysteroscopy is the most direct method for the diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine diseases. Hysteroscopic endometrial biopsy is more accurate than conventional biopsy methods. Cervical invasion of endometrial cancer can be detected by hysteroscopy. The depth of invasion, however, is more accurately determined by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography.ONGOING ISSUES:Many topics for ongoing research and/or implementation are mentioned under "Consensus Position," above. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

The extension of automation to the diagnostic assessment of clinical materials raises issues of professional responsibility, on the part of both the medical professional and designer of the device. The International Academy of Cytology (IAC) and other professional cytology societies should develop a policy towards automation in the diagnostic assessment of clinical cytologic materials.The following summarizes the discussion of the initial position statement at the International Expert Conference on Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century, Hawaii, June 1997. 1. The professional in charge of a clinical cytopathology laboratory continues to bear the ultimate medical responsibility for diagnostic decisions made at the facility, whether automated devices are involved or not. 2. The introduction of automated procedures into clinical cytology should under no circumstances lead to a lowering of standards of performance. A prime objective of any guidelines should be to ensure that an automated procedure, in principle, does not expose any patient to new risks, nor should it increase already-existing, inherent risks. 3. Automated devices should provide capabilities for the medical professional to conduct periodic tests of the appropriate performance of the device. 4. Supervisory personnel should continue visual quality control screening of a certain percentage of slides dismissed at primary screening as within normal limits (WNL), even when automated procedures are employed in the laboratory. 5. Specifications for the design of primary screening devices for the detection of cervical cancer issued by the IAC in 1984 were reaffirmed. 6. The setting of numeric performance criteria is the proper charge of regulatory agencies, which also have the power of enforcement. 7. Human expert verification of results represents the "gold standard" at this time. Performance characteristics of computerized cytology devices should be determined by adherence to defined and well-considered protocols. Manufacturers should not claim a new standard of care; this is the responsibility of the medical community and professional groups. 8. Cytology professionals should support the development of procedures that bring about an improvement in diagnostic decision making. Advances in technology should be adopted if they can help solve problems in clinical cytology. The introduction of automated procedures into diagnostic decision making should take place strictly under the supervision and with the active participation and critical evaluation by the professional cytology community.Guidelines should be developed for the communication of technical information about the performance of automated screening devices by the IAC to governmental agencies and national societies. Also, guidelines are necessary for the official communication of IAC concerns to industry, medicolegal entities and the media. Procedures and guidelines for the evaluation of studies pertaining to the performance of automated devices, performance metrics and definitions for evaluation criteria should be established.

General definitions of quality assurance and quality control (QA/C) have existed in many forms for decades, and a new discipline guides their application to diverse industrial and recently medical processes without much fanfare. However, in the field of cervical cytology screening, the range of QA/C options has recently broadened and become controversial. With the advent of new systems of terminology, larger-scale laboratories and new technologies-plus strong governmental and legal pressures in some nations-the range of extremely difficult and sometimes expensive QA/C choices our community faces is greater than ever. At our conference, the basic definitions of QA/C posed little difficulty. Presentation of the range of methods in use today and of those based on new technologies where use is proposed or has just begun also was achieved with little or no dispute. However, there was lack of consensus on exactly how QA/C methods are to be assessed. Indeed, there was little consistency in the use of different outcome measures with which we can judge success or failure of specific QA/C options. In addition, the tension between pressure to adopt sometimes uncertain or expensive method enhancements and pressure to maintain affordability and the widest possible access for populations that most need cervical cytology screening is greater than ever. Ongoing Issues More data are required that would enable assessment of QA/C options with the clearest possible understanding of cost/benefits and current or new assumptions of risk. Other task forces, such as medicolegal, cost/benefit and those devoted to new technologies, are our essential partners in meeting the challenges described above.

ISSUES General definitions of quality assurance and quality control (QA/C) have existed in many forms for decades, and a new discipline guides their application to diverse industrial and recently medical processes without much fanfare. However, in the field of cervical cytology screening, the range of QA/C options has recently broadened and become controversial. With the advent of new systems of terminology, larger-scale laboratories and new technologies--plus strong governmental and legal pressures in some nations--the range of extremely difficult and sometimes expensive QA/C choices our community faces is greater than ever. CONSENSUS POSITION At our conference, the basic definitions of QA/C posed little difficulty. Presentation of the range of methods in use today and of those based on new technologies where use is proposed or has just begun also was achieved with little or no dispute. However, there was lack of consensus on exactly how QA/C methods are to be assessed. Indeed, there was little consistency in the use of different outcome measures with which we can judge success or failure of specific QA/C options. In addition, the tension between pressure to adopt sometimes uncertain or expensive method enhancements and pressure to maintain affordability and the widest possible access for populations that most need cervical cytology screening is greater than ever. ONGOING ISSUES More data are required that would enable assessment of QA/C options with the clearest possible understanding of cost/benefits and current or new assumptions of risk. Other task forces, such as medicolegal, cost/benefit and those devoted to new technologies, are our essential partners in meeting the challenges described above.

ISSUES:General definitions of quality assurance and quality control (QA/C) have existed in many forms for decades, and a new discipline guides their application to diverse industrial and recently medical processes without much fanfare. However, in the field of cervical cytology screening, the range of QA/C options has recently broadened and become controversial. With the advent of new systems of terminology, larger-scale laboratories and new technologies--plus strong governmental and legal pressures in some nations--the range of extremely difficult and sometimes expensive QA/C choices our community faces is greater than ever.CONSENSUS POSITION:At our conference, the basic definitions of QA/C posed little difficulty. Presentation of the range of methods in use today and of those based on new technologies where use is proposed or has just begun also was achieved with little or no dispute. However, there was lack of consensus on exactly how QA/C methods are to be assessed. Indeed, there was little consistency in the use of different outcome measures with which we can judge success or failure of specific QA/C options. In addition, the tension between pressure to adopt sometimes uncertain or expensive method enhancements and pressure to maintain affordability and the widest possible access for populations that most need cervical cytology screening is greater than ever.ONGOING ISSUES:More data are required that would enable assessment of QA/C options with the clearest possible understanding of cost/benefits and current or new assumptions of risk. Other task forces, such as medicolegal, cost/benefit and those devoted to new technologies, are our essential partners in meeting the challenges described above.

The extension of automation to the diagnostic assessment of clinical materials raises issues of professional responsibility, on the part of both the medical professional and designer of the device. The International Academy of Cytology (IAC) and other professional cytology societies should develop a policy towards automation in the diagnostic assessment of clinical cytologic materials.The following summarizes the discussion of the initial position statement at the International Expert Conference on Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century, Hawaii, June 1997.1. The professional in charge of a clinical cytopathology laboratory continues to bear the ultimate medical responsibility for diagnostic decisions made at the facility, whether automated devices are involved or not.2. The introduction of automated procedures into clinical cytology should under no circumstances lead to It lowering of standards of performance. A prime objective of any guidelines should be to ensure that an automated procedure, in principle, does not expose any patient to new risks, nor should it increase already-existing inherent risks.3. Automated devices should provide capabilities for the medical professional to conduct periodic tests of the appropriate performance of the device.4. Supervisory personnel should continue visual quality control screening of a certain percentage of slides dismissed at primary screening as within normal limits (WNL), even when automated procedures are employed in the laboratory.5. Specifications for the design of primary screening devices for the detection of cervical cancer issued by the IAC in 1984 were reaffirmed.6. The setting of numeric performance criteria is the proper charge of regulatory agencies, which also have the power of enforcement.7. Human expert verification of results represents the "gold standard" at this time. Performance characteristics of computerized cytology devices should be determined by adherence to defined and well-considered protocols. Manufacturers should not claim a new standard of care; this is the responsibility of the medical community and professional groups.8. Cytology professionals should support the development of procedures that bring about an improvement in diagnostic decision making. Advances in technology should be adopted if they can help solve problems in clinical cytology. The introduction of automated procedures into diagnostic decision making should take place strictly under the supervision and with the active participation and critical evaluation by the professional cytology community.Ongoing IssuesGuidelines should be developed for the communication of technical information about the performance of automated screening devices by the IAC to governmental agencies and national societies. Also, guidelines are necessary for the official communication of IAC concerns to industry, medicolegal entities and the media. Procedures and guidelines for the evaluation of studies pertaining to the performance of automated devices, performance metrics and definitions for evaluation criteria should be established.