Prevalence of squamous abnormalities in women with a recent smear without endocervical cells is lower as compared to women with smears with endocervical cells

Cytopathology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 58-65

  Siebers, A G ^a   De Leeuw, H ^a   Verbeek, A L M ^a   Hanselaar, A G J M ^a,b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Found Prev Cervical Cancer E N ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Abnormality rate; Cervix; Endocervical cells; Prevalence rate ratio; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CELL TYPE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ENDOCERVICAL CELL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; CERVIX UTERI; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0037954145     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2003.00036.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Hanselaar AGJM. Criteria of organized screening programs for cervical cancer: special emphasis on the program in the Netherlands. Acta Cytol 2002; 46: 619-29.
2. Elias A, Linthorst G, Bekker B, Vooijs GP. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol 1983; 27: 225-9.
3. Henry JA, Wadehra V. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytological abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 529-35.
4. Husain OAN, Butler EB, Evans DMD, MacGregor JE, Yule R. Quality control in cervical cytology. J Clin Pathol 1976; 27: 935-44.
5. Kivlahan C, Ingram E. Papanicolaou smears without endocervical cells: are they inadequate? Acta Cytol 1986; 30: 258-60.
6. Koss LG. Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic basis, 4th edn, Volume 1. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1992; 475p.
7. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 1991; 337: 265-7.
8. Vooijs GP, Elias A, Van der Graaf Y, Veling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 323-8.
9. Woodman CBJ, Williams D, Yates M, Tomlinson K, Ward K, Luesley D. Indicators of effective cytological sampling of the uterine cervix. Lancet 1989; 2: 88-90.
10. Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Reitveld WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 843-8.
11. Vooijs GP, van Aspert-van Erp A. Quality assurance and quality control in cervical cytology. In Compendium on Diagnostic Cytology. GL Wied, M Bibbo, CM Keebler, LG Koss, SF Patten and D Rosenthal (eds). Chicago 1997, Tutorials of Cytology; pp. 394-408.
12. Beeby AR, Wadehra V, Keating PJ, Wagstaff TI. A retrospective analysis of 94 patients with CIN and false negative cervical smears taken at colposcopy. Cytopathol 1993; 4: 331-7.
13. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JP. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 1043-6.
14. Robertson JH, Woodend B. Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention. J Clin Pathol 1993; 46: 700-2.
15. Martin-Hirch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G et al. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999; 354: 1763-9.
16. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle E, Hanselaar AG, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 115: 851-5.
17. Mitchell HS. Longitudinal analysis of histologic highgrade disease after negative cervical cytology according to endocervical status. Cancer Cytopathol 2001; 93: 237-40.
18. McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. Acta Cytol 1998; 41: 25-32.