Receiver operating characteristic curves for analysis of the results of cervicovaginal smears: A useful quality improvement tool

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 121, Issue 9, 1997, Pages 968-975

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a   Dean, Barbara R ^a   Cibas, Edmund S ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DISEASE;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0031435691     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. The Bethesda Committee. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol. 1993;37:115-124.
2. National Cancer Institute. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA. 1989;262:931-934.
3. Council on Scientific Affairs. Quality assurance in cervical cytology: the Papanicolaou smear. JAMA. 1989;262:1672-1679.
4. Rohr R. Quality assurance in gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990;94:754-758.
5. Sherman ME, Kelly D. High grade squamous intraepithleial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failure or rapid progression? Mod Pathol. 1992;5:337-342.
6. Koss LG. Cervical (Pap) smear: new directions. Cancer. 1993;71:1406-1412.
7. Dehner LP. Cervicovaginal cytology, false-negative results, and standards of practice. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;99:45-47.
8. Tabbara WO, Sidaway MK. Evaluation of the five year review of negative smears in patients with high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol. 1993;37:767. Abstract.
9. Allen KA, Zaleski S, Cohen MB. Review of negative Papanicolaou tests: is the retrospective 5-year review necessary. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:19-21.
10. Hatem F, Wilbur DC. High grade squamous cervical lesions following negative Papanicolaou smears: false negative cervical cytology or rapid progression. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;12:135-141.
11. Jones BA. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1995;119:1097-1103.
12. Dodd LC, Sneige N, Villarreal Y, et al. Quality-assurance study of simultaneously sampled, non-correlating cervical cytology and biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9:138-144.
13. Cramer H, Schlenk E. An analysis of discrepancies between the cervical cytologic diagnosis and subsequent histopathologic diagnosis in 1260 cases. Acta Cytol. 1994;38:812. Abstract.
14. Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE, et al. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:594-597.
15. Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:32-34.
16. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:523-531.
17. 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.
18. Tabbara SO, Faser C, Frost AR, Sidaway MK. Toward establishing a target value for the ASCUS/SIL ratio. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:989. Abstract.
19. Howell LP, Davis RL. Follow-up of Papanicolaou smears diagnosed as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:20-24.
20. Williams ML, Rimm EL, Pedigo MA, Frable WJ. Histologic correlation of ASCUS: a university hospital's experience. Acta Cytol. 1994;38:795. Abstract.
21. 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.
22. Raab SS. Diagnostic accuracy in cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;10:68-75.
23. Cohen MB, Raab SS. Beyond sensitivity and specificity. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:99-100.
24. Raab SS, Thomas PA, Lenel JC, et al. Pathology and probability. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:588-593.
25. Collins LC, Wang HH, Abu-Jawdeh GM. Qualifiers of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance help in patient management. Mod Pathol. 1996;9:677-681.
26. Kline MJ, Davey DD. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance qualified: a follow-up study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:380-384.
27. Rimm DL, Gmitro S, Frable WJ. Atypical reparative change on cervical/vaginal smears may be associated with dysplasia. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:374-379.
28. Chang JH, Rutkowski MA, Phillips MA, Wilbur DC, Mesonero CE. The potential biological and clinical significance of reactive/reparative cellular changes in cervical smears: a five year follow-up study. Acta Cytol. 1996;40: 1038. Abstract.