Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin- layer system for cervical cancer screening

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 278-284

  Lee, Kenneth R ^a   Ashfaq, Raheela ^b   Birdsong, George G ^b   Corkill, Mary E ^b   McIntosh, Karen M ^b   Inhorn, Stanley L ^b  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PRESERVATIVE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL LABORATORY; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; TISSUE SECTION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0030797094     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00228-7     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Improving the quality of clinician Pap smear technique and management, client Pap smear education, and the evaluation of Pap smear laboratory testing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Public Health Service; 1989.
2. Gay J, Donaldson L, Goellner J. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985;29:1043-6.
3. Dodd L, Sneige N, Villarreal Y, Fanning CV, Staerkel GA, Caraway NP, et al. Quality-assurance study of simultaneously sampled, non-correlating cervical cytology and biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:138-44.
4. King E, Barrett D, Hill E, Mathios A, Kusumwidjaja H, King M. Gynecologic specimen adequacy for flow system experiments. J Histochem Cytochem 1977;25:499-503.
5. Goodman A, Hutchinson M. Cell surplus on sampling devices after routine cervical cytologic smears: A study of residual cell populations. J Reprod Med 1996;41:239-41.
6. Hutchinson M, Isenstein L, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep® Processor: Subsampling - a problem with Pap smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101: 215-9.
7. Koss L. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261:737-43.
8. Jones W. Impact of the Bethesda System. Cancer 1995;76:1914-3.
9. Kurman R, Soloman D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: Definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994:3.
10. Agresti A. Analysis of ordinal categorical data. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984:208-9.
11. Eckert L, Koutsky L, Kiviat N, Krone M, Stevens C, Eschenbach D. The inflammatory Papanicolaou smear: What does it mean? Obstet Gynecol 1995;86:360-6.
12. Abdul-Karim F, Fu Y, Reagan J, Wentz W. Morphometric study of intraepithelial neoplasia of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:210-4.
13. Sheets E, Constantine N, Dinisco S, Dean B, Cibas E. Colposcopically directed biopsies provide a basis for comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smears. J Gynecol Tech 1995;1:27-33.
14. Wilbur D, Cibas E, Merritt S, James LP, Berger B, Bonfiglio T. ThinPrep Processor clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14.
15. Aponte-Cipriani S, Teplitz C, Rorat E, Savino A, Jacobs A. Cervical smears prepared by an automated device versus the conventional method: A comparative analysis. Acta Cytol 1995;39:623-30.
16. Awen C, Hathway S, Eddy W, Voskuil R, Janes C. The efficacy of ThinPrep preparation of cervical smears: A 1000-case, investigator-sponsored study. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;11:33-7.
17. Bur M, Knowles K, Pekow P, Corral O, Donovan J. Comparison of ThinPrep preparations with conventional cervicovaginal smears. Acta Cytol 1994;39:631-42.
18. Laverty C, Thurloe J, Redman N, Farnsworth A. An Australian trial of ThinPrep: A new cytopreparatory technique. Cytopathology 1994;6:140-8.
19. Corkill M, Knapp D, Martin J, Hutchinson M. Specimen adequacy of ThinPrep sample preparations in a direct-to-vial study. Acta Cytol 1997;41:39-44.
20. Tezuka F, Oikawa H, Shuki H, Higashiiwai H. Diagnostic efficacy and validity of the ThinPrep method in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:513-8.
21. Ferenczy A. Viral testing for genital human papillomavirus infections: Recent progress and clinical potentials. Int J Gynaecol Cancer 1995;5:321-8.
22. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, Herrero R, Hutchinson ML, Bratti C, et al. Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomovirus testing. Cancer Cyto Pathol, in press.