The detection of precancerous cervical lesions can be significantly increased: Who cares and who should know?

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 127, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 143-145

  Austin, R Marshall ^a,b  

^a Department of Cytopathology and Gynecologic Pathology Services   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

VIRUS DNA;

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRECANCER AND CANCER-IN-SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; VIRUS DETECTION; WART VIRUS;

DNA PROBES, HPV; FEMALE; HUMANS; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; TUMOR VIRUS INFECTIONS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0037326849     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (39)

1. Limaye A, Connor Al, Huang X, Luff R. Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:200-204.
2. Bernstein S, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubishi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smear: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:308-317.
3. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkhill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:278-284.
4. Schiffman M. Epidemiology. In: Kurman RJ, ed. Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. 5th ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2002:1301-1318.
5. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R, for the ALTS Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:292-299.
6. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2382-2390.
7. Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R, Zhang WH, Elson P, Li L. Shanxi Province cervical cancer screening study: a cross sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;83:439-444.
8. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. JAMA. 1989;261:737-741.
9. Devesa SS, Young JL. Recent trends in cervix uteri cancer. Cancer. 1989;64:2184-2190.
10. McCrory DC, Mather DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 5. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999. AHCPR publication 99-EO10.
11. Colgan TJ, Austin RM, Davey DD. The annual Papanicolaou test, women's safety and public policy. Cancer Cytopathol. 2001;93:81-85.
12. Kinney W, Miller M, Sung HY, Sawaya GF, Kearney KA, Hiatt RA. Risk of invasive squamous carcinoma of the cervix associated with screening intervals of 1, 2, and 3 years: a case-control study. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(suppl):3.
13. Van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Balegooijen MV, van Oartmarssen GJ, Boer R, Habbema JDF. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:193-204.
14. Austin RM. Who should decide how effective cervical cancer screening should be? J Reprod Med. 1999;44:317-320.
15. Davison JM, Marty JJ. Detecting premalignant cervical lesions: contributions of screening colposcopy to cytology. J Reprod Med. 1994;39:388-392.
16. Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Lehmann M, Ritter J, Phillipe E. Cervical cancer screening with cervicography and cytology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;58:33-39.
17. Hockstad RL. A comparison of simultaneous cervical cytology, HPV testing, and colposcopy. Fam Pract Res J. 1992;12:53-60.
18. Friedell GH. Addendum. In: Sommers SC, ed. Genital and Mammary Pathology Decennial. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1975:49-53.
19. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 1999;87:48-55.
20. Wright TC, Cox IT, Massad ES, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytologic abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.
21. Coney S. The Unfortunate Experiment. Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin Books; 1988.
22. Schiffmanm M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, et al. HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening results from women in a high risk province in Costa Rica. JAMA. 2000;283:87-93.
23. Birdsong GG. FDA panel reviews proposal for use of HPV testing in conjunction with Pap tests as a primary screening modality in women 30 and older. ASC Bull. 2002;39:60-67.
24. Brown AD, Raab SS, Suba EJ, Wright RG. Cost-effectiveness studies on cervical cancer. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:509-514.
25. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:791-794.
26. Smith HO, Tiffany MI, Quails CR, Key CR. The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States: a 24 year population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:97-105.
27. Cox JT. AGUS Pap smears: a follow-up strategy. OBG Manage. July 1998;7:74-87.
28. Mitchell H, Medley G, Gordon I, Giles G. Cervical cytology reported as negative and risk of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: no strong benefit. Br J Cancer. 1995;71:894-897.
29. Bergstrom R, Sparen P, Adami H-O. Trends in cancer uteri in Sweden following cytologic screening. Br J Cancer, 1999;81:159-166.
30. Brinton LA, Tashima KT, Lehman HF, et al. Epidemiology of cervical cancer by cell type. Cancer Res. 1987;47:1706-1711.
31. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Hakama M. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:1017-1021.
32. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:19-24.
33. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:81-85.
34. Ronnett BM, Manos MM, Ransley JE, et al. Atypical glandular ceils of undetermined significance (AGCUS): cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection. Hum Pathol. 1999;30:816-825.
35. Jones BA, Novis DA, Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 16132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:665-671.
36. Day SI, Deszo EL, Freund GG. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:41-46.
37. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP: direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:912-916.
38. Marino IF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med. 2001;46:353-358.
39. Montz FI, Farber FJ, Brislow RE, Cornelison T. Impact of increasing Papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: a new modeled cost and outcomes analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:781-788.