The effect of the quality of Papanicolaou smears on the detection of cytologic abnormalities

Cancer

Volumn 87, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 113-117

  Mintzer, Melanie ^a   Curtis, Peter ^a   Resnick, Jacqueline C ^b   Morrell, Daphne ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Dysplasia; Endocervical cells; Papanicolaou smear; Quality; Squamous intraepithelial lesion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE ENDOCERVIX;

ADULT; ENDOTHELIUM; FEMALE; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0033603536     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990625)87:3<113::AID-CNCR3>3.0.CO;2-V     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Cannistra SA, Niloff JM. Cancer of the uterine cervix. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1030-8.
2. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: a triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261:737-43.
3. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
4. Morell D, Curtis P, Mintzer M, Resnick JC, Hendrix S, Qaqish BF. Perceptions and opinions on the performance of Pap smears: a survey of clinicians using a commercial laboratory. Am J Prev Med 1996:12:271-6.
5. Fischer JR, Ward RE, Kini SR. Prevalence of abnormalities in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical component. Acta Cytol 1991;35:588.
6. Buntinx F, Knotterus JA, Crebholder HFJM, Essed GGM, Schouten H. Relation between quality of cervical smears and probability of abnormal results. BMJ 1992;304:1224.
7. Mauney M, Eide D. Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical cells. Diagn Cytopathol 1990;6:18-21.
8. Buntinx F, Essed GGM, Knotterus JA, Crebolder HFJM. The effect of sampling devices on the presence of endocervical cells in cervical smears. Eur J Cancer 1994;3:23-30.
9. Williamson SL, Hair T, Wadehra V. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening. Cytopathology 1997;8:188-95.
10. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 1991;338:265-7.
11. Dotters D, Carney C, Droegmuller W. Nylon brush improves collection of cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:814-9.
12. Melamed MR, Flehinger BJ. Reevaluation of quality assurance in the cytology laboratory [editorial]. Acta Cytol 1992; 36:461-5.
13. Vooijis GP, Goettler K, Feichter GE, Witte S (eds). Significance of cellular composition of smears for reliability of cytological diagnosis. In: New frontiers in cytology: modern aspects of research and practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988:412-20.
14. Wadehra V, Sankar K. Quality grading for cervical smears. Cytopathology 1996;7:301-9.
15. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH. Interim guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA 1994;271:1866-9.
16. Austin RM, McLendon WW. The Papanicolaou smear: medicine's most successful cancer screening procedure is threatened [editorial]. JAMA 1997;277:754-5.
17. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995;6:368-75.
18. Mitchell H. Consistency of reporting endocervical cells: an intralaboratory and interlaboratory assessment. Acta Cytol 1994;38:310-4.
19. Ciatto S, Cariaggi MP, Minuti AP, Confortini M, Palli D, Pas L, et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility in reporting inadequate cervical smears-a multicenter multinational study. Cytopathology 1996;7:386-90.
20. Harris JM. Papanicolaou smear recommendations, patient complaints and patient satisfaction in managed-care medical organizations. Med Care 1995;33:272-9.