Personal view. Is it reality or an illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears?

Cytopathology

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 383-389

  Herbert, Amanda ^a   Johnson, Jane ^b  

^a GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical screening; Liquid based cytology; Sensitivity and specificity of cervical screening

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COLPOSCOPY; COST CONTROL; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL PROFESSION; PILOT STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0035780226     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00375.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Use of Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Screening. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 5. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
2. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 90: 278-84.
3. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CR. Evaluation of ThinPrep test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap test. Med J Austr 1997; 167: 446-9.
4. Johnson J, Patnick J. NHSCSP Publication No 1: Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 2nd Edn. Sheffield: NHSCSP; 2000.
5. Broadstock M. New Zealand Health Technology Assessment (NZHTA) Report Vol 3 No 1: Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Automated and Semi-automated Cervical Screening Devices. 2000. Available from http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.uk
6. Carpenter AB, Davies DD. ThinPrep Pap Test: Performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer 1999; 87: 105-12.
7. Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med 2001; 46: 353-8.
8. Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap test with the conventional Pap test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 709-14.
9. McGoogan E. Improved adequacy rates using ThinPrep Pap test for routine cytopathology. Cytopathology 1999; 10 (Suppl. 1): (Abstract).
10. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening a rapid and sytstemic review. Health Technol Assessment 2000; 4: 1-73.
11. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med 2000; 45: 912-6.
12. Editorial. Reprocessing ThinPrep Pap tests. Am Soc Cytopathol Bull 2000; 37: 82-6.
13. Wilson S, Johnson J. An audit of cervical cancer deaths in Nottingham. Cytopathology 1992; 3: 79-83.
14. Baker RW, O'Sullivan JP, Hanley J, Coleman DV. The characteristics of false negative cervical smears - Implications for the UK cervical cancer screening programme. J Clin Pathol 1999; 52: 358-62.
15. Yeoh GPS, Chan KW. Cell block preparation on residual ThinPrep sample. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21: 427-31.
16. Slater DN. For debate - Ethical considerations of gynaecological liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus studies. Cytopathology 2001; 12: 251-6.
17. Sparkes J, Schoolland M, Barrett P, Kurinczuk JJ, Mitchell KM, Sterrett GF. Trends in the frequency and predictive value of reporting high grade abnormalities in cervical smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2000; 90: 215-21.
18. Herbert A. Cervical screening in England and Wales: Its effect has been underestimated. Cytopathology 2000; 11: 471-9.
19. Sasieni P, Adams J. Changing rates of adeno-carcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix in England. Lancet 2001; 357: 1490-3.
20. Beral V, Booth M. Predictions of cervical cancer incidence and mortality in England and Wales. Lancet, 1986; 2: 495.
21. Department of Health Statistical Bulletin. Cervical Screening Programme, England. London: Department of Health; 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.
22. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of Automated and Semi-Automated Cervical Screening Devices. Canberra: Department of Health and Family Services; 1998.
23. Wain GW. Automation in cervical cytology: Whose cost and whose benefit? Med J Austr 1997; 167: 460-1.
24. Herbert A. Cervical screening: How often should women be screened? Cytopathology 2000; 11: 75-81.
25. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assessment 1999; 3: No. 14.
26. Sawaya GF Grimes DA. New technologies in cervical cytology screening: A word of caution. Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 94: 307-10.