Journal List > Korean J Cytopathol > v.19(2) > 1006537

Korean J Cytopathol. 2008 Sep;19(2):65-71. Korean.
Published online September 30, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 The Korean Society for Cytopathology
Quality Control Program and Its Results of Korean Society for Cytopathologists
Hye Kyung Lee, M.D., Sung Nam Kim, M.D.,1 Shin Kwang Khang, M.D.,2 Chang Suk Kang, M.D.,3 and Hye-Kyoung Yoon, M.D.4
Department of Pathology, Eulji University Hospital, Korea.
1Department of Pathology, P&B Pathology Clinic, Korea.
2Department of Pathology, Seoul Asan Medical Center, Korea.
3Department of Pathology, Yeouido St Mary Hospital, Korea.
4Department of Pathology, Pusan Paik Hospital, Korea.
Received July 29, 2008; Accepted August 25, 2008.


In Korea, the quality control(QC) program forcytopathology was introduced in 1995. The program consists of a checklist for the cytolopathology departments, analysis data on all the participating institutions' QC data, including the annual data on cytologic examinations, the distribution of the gynecological cytologic diagnoses, as based on The Bethesda System 2001, and the data on cytologic-histolgical correlation of the gynecological field, and an evaluation for diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic accuracy program has been performed 3 times per year with using gynecological, body fluid and fine needle aspiration cytologic slides. We report here on the institutional QC data and the evaluation for diagnostic accuracy since 2004, and also on the new strategy for quality control and assurance in the cytologic field. The diagnostic accuracy results of both the participating institutions and the QC committee were as follows; Category 0 and A: about 94%, Category B: 4~5%, Category C: less than 2%. As a whole, the cytologic daignostic accuracy is relatively satisfactory. In 2008, on site evaluation for pathology and cytology laboratories, as based on the "Quality Assurance Program for Pathology Services" is now going on, and a new method using virtual slides or image files for determining the diagnostic accuracy will be performed in November 2008.

Keywords: Quality control program; Cytopathology; Korea


Fig. 1
Annual data of cytology examination
Click for larger image

Fig. 2
Comparison of conventional smear and liquid-based cytology in gynecological cytology
Click for larger image

Fig. 3
Distribution of cytologic diagnoses in gynecologic cytology in 2004 and 2007
Click for larger image

Fig. 4
Distribution of diagnostic accuracy categories in gynecologic cytology field
Click for larger image

Fig. 5
Distribution of diagnostic accuracy categories in non-gynecologic cytology field
Click for larger image


Table 1
Protocols for the evaluation of accuracy of GYN cytologic diagnosis
Click for larger image

Table 2
Comparison of conventional vs liquid-based smears of gynecologic cytology in 2004 and 2007 according to the type of institution
Click for larger image

1. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based studyconducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 1999;87:48–55.
2. Limaye A, Connor AJ, Huang X, Luff R. Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:200–204.
3. Linder J, Zahniser D. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:139–144.
4. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates. 2003 practices of participants in the college of American pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:1224–1229.
5. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:390–396.
6. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, Stastny J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:203–211.
7. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523–531.
8. Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology: experience with 1,582 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:32–34.
9. Nagy GK. False negative rate. Acta Cytol 1997;41:778–780.
10. Krieger P, Naryshkin S. Random re-screening of cytologic smears: a practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both small and large laboratories. Acta Cytol 1994;38:291–298.
11. Mody DR, Davey DD, Branca M, et al. Quality assurance and risk reduction guidelines. Acta Cytol 2000;44:496–507.
12. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. In: The Betheseda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
13. Fidda N, Miron J, Rodgers WH, Rader A. Impact of the new Bethesda System 2001 on specimen adequacy of conventional cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:235–239.
14. Raab SS, Zaleski MS, Thomas PA, et al. Telecytology:diagnostic accuracy in cervical-vaginal smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105:599–603.