Estimating the sensitivity of cervical cytology: Errors of interpretation and test limitations

Cytopathology

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 151-158

  Ronco, G ^a   Montanari, G ^b   Aimone, V ^b   Parisio, F ^b   Segnan, N ^a   Valle, A ^a,c   Volante, R ^b  

^a Department of Oncology   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^c SAN GIOVANNI ADDOLORATA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

cervical cancer screening; errors of interpretation; sensitivity of cytology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS EPITHELIUM; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 0029948976     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1996.39382393.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Coleman D, Day N, Douglas G, Farmery E, Lynge E, Philip J, Segnan N. European Guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A (Suppl. 4):S1-S38.
2. Tawa K, Forsythe A, Cove JK, Saltz A, Peters HW, Watring GW. A comparison of the Papanicolaou smear and the cervigram: sensitivity, specificity and cost analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 229-35.
3. Reid R, Greenberg MD, Lorincz A et al. Should cervical cytology testing be augmented by cervicography or human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid detection? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164: 1461-9.
4. Davison JM, Marty JJ. Detecting premalignant cervical lesions. Contribution of screening colposcopy to cytology. J Reprod Med 1994; 39: 388-92.
5. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 115-24.
6. Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs GP, deHaan AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1988; 32: 794-800.
7. Confortini M, Biggeri A, Cariaggi MP, Carozzi FM, Minuti PA, Russo A, Palli D. Intralaboratory reproducibility in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 49-54.
8. Paterson MEL, Peel KR, Joslin CAF. Cervical smear history of 500 women with invasive cervical cancer in Yorkshire. Br Med J 1984; 289: 896-8.
9. Attwood ME, Woodman CBJ, Luesley D, Jordan JA. Previous cytology in patients with invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 108-10.
10. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Gollner JR. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 1043-6.
11. van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP, Gaillard HL, Go DMDS. Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening. Acta Cytol 1987; 31: 434-8.
12. Mitchell H, Medley G, Drake M. Quality control for cervical cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1988; 32: 288-92.
13. Mitchell H, Medley G, Giles G. Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results of cervical cytology: perspective in the 1980s. Br Med J 1990; 300: 1622-6.
14. Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg KD, Holund B, Holm K, Hansen MK. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytol 1991; 35: 48-50.
15. Robertson JH, Woodend B. Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention. J Clin Pathol 1993; 46: 700-2.
16. Slater DN, Milner PC, Radley H. Audit of deaths from cervical cancer: proposal for an essential component of the national screening programme. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47: 27-28.
17. Faraker CA. Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. Cytopathology 1993; 4: 47-50.
18. Fahey MT, Irwing L, Macaskill P. Meta analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141: 680-9.
19. Ranshoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 926-30.
20. DiBonito L, Falconieri G, Tomasic G, Colautti I, Bonifacio D, Dudine S. Cervical cytopathology. An evaluation of its accuracy based on cytohistologic comparison. Cancer 1993; 72: 3002-6.
21. Mitchell H, Medley G. Cellular differences between true negative and false negative Papanicolaou smears. Cytopathology 1993; 4: 285-90.
22. Sidawy MK, Tabbara SO, Silverberg SG. Should we report cervical smears lacking endocervical component as unsatisfactory? Diagn Cytopathol 1992; 8: 567-70.
23. Lynge E, Arffman E, Poll P, Andersen PK. Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 1993; 68: 368-73.
24. Morrison AS. Screening in Chronic Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
25. Gustafsson L, Adami HO. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique. Br J Cancer 1989; 60: 132-41.
26. van Oortmartsen GJ, Habbema JDF. Epidemiological evidence of age-dependent regression of preinvasive cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1991; 64: 559-65.
27. IARC working group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policy. Br Med J 1986; 293: 659-64.