Telecytology: Diagnostic accuracy in cervical-vaginal smears

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 105, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 599-603

  Raab, Stephen S ^a,b   Zaleski, M Sue ^a   Thomas, Patricia A ^a   Niemann, Theodore H ^a   Isacson, Christina ^a   Jensen, Chris S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS   (United States)

Author keywords

Automated screening; Cervical vaginal smear; Cytology; Diagnostic accuracy; Dysplasia; Reproducibility; Telecytology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MICROSCOPY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VAGINA SMEAR; VIDEORECORDING;

EID: 0029881703     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/105.5.599     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Weinstein RS. Prospects for telepathology. Hum Pathol 1986;17: 433-434.
2. Weinstein RS, Bloom KJ, Rozek LS. Telepathology: Long distance diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol 1989;91(suppl):S39-S42.
3. Erickson D. Do you see what I see? Sci Am 1990;262:88-89.
4. Weinstein RS. Telepathology: Practicing pathology in two places at once. Clinical Laboratory Management Review 1992;171-173.
5. Weinstein RS, Bloom KJ, Rozek LS. Telepathology and the networking of pathology diagnostic services. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1987;111:646-652.
6. Weinstein RS. Telepathology comes of age in Norway. Hum Pathol 1991;22:511-513.
7. Nordrum I, Engum B, Rinde, et al. Remote frozen section service: A telepathology project in Norway. Hum Pathol 1991;22:514-518.
8. Wold LE, Weiland LH. Telepathology at the Mayo Clinic. Clinical Laboratory Management Review 1992;174-175.
9. Eide TJ, Nordrum I, Engum B, et al. Use of telecommunications in pathology and anatomic services. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1991;111:17-19.
10. Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Boon ME, Beck S. Computer-assisted primary screening of cervical smears using the PAPNET method: Comparison with conventional screening and the evaluation of the role of the cytologist. Cytopathology 1994;5:211-218.
11. Koss LG, Lin E, Schrieber K. Elger P, Mango L. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:220-229.
12. Williams C, Rosenthal DL. Cytopathology in the 21st century. Am J Clin Pathol 1993;99(suppl):S31-S33.
13. Ploem JS, van Driel-Kulker AMJ, Verwoerd NP. LEYTAS: A cytology screening system using the new modular image analysis computer (MIAC) from Leitz. In: Burger G, Ploem JS, Goerttler K, eds. Clinical Cytometry and Histometry. London: Academic Press, 1987, pp 24-35.
14. Slagel DD, Zaleski S, Cohen MB. The efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:26-30.
15. Hutchinson ML, Cassin BM, Bull HG III. The efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;96:300-305.
16. Bahr GF, Bibbo M, Oehme M, Puls JH, Reale FR, Wied GL. An automated device for the production of cell preparations suitable for automatic assessment. Acta Cytol 1978;22:243-249.
17. Ashfaq R, Liang Y, Saboorian MH. Evaluation of PAPNET™ system for rescreening of negative cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:31-36.
18. Raab SS. Diagnostic accuracy in cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;10:68-75.
19. Raab SS, Bottles K, Cohen MB. Technology assessment in anatomic pathology: An illustration of technology assessment techniques in fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994;18:1173-1180.
20. Valenstein P. Technology assessment for the diagnostic laboratory. American Society of Clinical Pathology Special Topics Council Commission on Continuing Education: Should this test be done? Lecture notes. American Society of Clinical Pathology Meeting, 1992.
21. Ziol M, Vacher-Lavenu M, Ferrand J, et al. Telepathology and cervical Papanicolaou smears: Is teletransmission of selected fields available for interpretation of squamous cell abnormalities? Acta Cytol 1995;39:376.
22. The Bethesda Committee. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993;37:115-124.
23. The Bethesda Committee. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Diagnoses. New York: Springer Verlag, 1994.
24. The Bethesda Committee. Current issues: The 1991 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal diagnoses. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:235-293.
25. Koss LG. The new Bethesda system for reporting results of smears of the uterine cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:988-991.
26. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991.
27. Koss LG. Epidermoid carcinoma of the uterine cervix and related precancerous lesions. Part II: Cytologic diagnosis and its consequences. In: Koss LG, ed. Diagnostic Cytology and Its Histologic Bases. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1992, pp 470-471.
28. Vooijs GP. Benign proliferative reactions, intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix. In: Bibbo M, ed. Comprehensive Cytopathology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1991, pp 221-225.
29. Klinkhamer PJM, Vooijs GP, de Haan AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1988;32:794-800.
30. Klinkhamer PJM, Vooijs GP, de Haan AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:215-218.
31. Evans DMD, Shelley G, Cleary B, Baldwin Y. Observer variation and quality control of cytodiagnosis. J Clin Pathol 1974;27: 945-950.
32. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis: II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol 1987;31:900-910.
33. Yobs AR, Swanson RA, Lamotte LC, Jr. Laboratory reliability of the Papanicolaou smear. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:235-244.
34. Seybolt JF, Johnson WD. Cervical cytodiagnostic problems: A survey. Am J Obstet Gyencol 1971;109:1089-1103.
35. Koss LG. Cytologic evaluation of the uterine cervix: Factors influencing its accuracy. Pathologist 1982;36:401-407.
36. Linder J, Allen KA, Hansen S. Remote cytologic diagnosis by videotelephone (Abstr). Acta Cytol 1988;32:772.
37. Linder J, Masada CT. Frozen section diagnosis by videotelephone (Abstr). Lab Invest 1989;60:54A.
38. Becker FL, Specht CS, Jones R, Rueda-Pedraza ME, O'Leary TJ. Use of remote video microscopy (telepathology) as an adjunct to neuro-surgical frozen section consultation. Hum Pathol 1993;24:909-911.
39. Zaleski MS, Thomas PA, Ferguson DJ, Niemann TH, Raab SS. Telecytology: Diagnostic accuracy with comparison to light microscopy in the bronchial brush specimen. J Surg Pathol 1996 (in press).