Programmatic assessments of the clinical effectiveness of gynecologic liquid-based cytology: The ayes have it

Cancer

Volumn 99, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 259-262

  Colgan, Terence J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical screening; Clinical effectiveness; Liquid based cytology; Pap test; SurePath; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0141891805     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11672     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment: Number 5, January 1999 [monograph online]. Rockville, MD: AHCPR, 1999. Available from URL: http://www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/epcsums/cervsumm.htm [accessed May 29, 2003].
2. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices [monograph online]. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 1998. Available from URL: http://www.csp.nsw.gov.au/downloads/review_automated_sem.pdf [accessed May 29, 2003].
3. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review. New Zealand health technology assessment report. Volume 3 [monograph online]. Christchurch: Clearing House for Health Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment, 2000. Available from URL: http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/nzhtainfo/csv3n1.PDF [accessed May 29, 2003].
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Final appraisal consultation document: guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening (review of existing guidance Number 5) [monograph online]. London: NICE, 2003. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=82877 [accessed Sept. 3, 2003].
5. Noorani HZ. Assessment of techniques for cervical cancer screening [monograph online]. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 1997. Available from URL: http://www.ccohta.ca/entry_e.html [accessed June 4, 2003].
6. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess [serial online]. 2000;4:1-73. Available from URL: http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/fullmono/mon418.pdf [accessed May 29, 2003].
7. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:342-362.
8. Scottish Cervical Screening Programme. Steering group report on the feasibility of introducing liquid based cytology [monograph online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Cervical Screening Programme, 2002. Available from URL: http://www.omni.ac.uk/browse/mesh/detail/C0010818L0010818.html [accessed June 4, 2003].
9. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening: cervical cancer. Update, 2003 release [monograph online]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2003. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscerv.htm [accessed May 29, 2003].
10. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA. 1999;281:347-353.
11. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid based cervical cytology. A review of the literature with methods of evidence based medicine. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003;99:263-271.
12. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:1616-1623.
13. 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.
14. Limaye A, Connor AJ, 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.
15. Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:817-821.
16. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ [serial online]. 2003;326:733-737. Available from URL: http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/326/7392/733.pdf [accessed May 29, 2003].
17. FDA approves enhanced labeling for TriPath Imaging's liquid based cytology [monograph online]. PRNewswire. 2003 May 5. Available from URL: http://ir.thomsonfn.com/InvestorRelations/PubNewsStory.aspx?partner= Mzg0TlRFd01BPT1QJFkEQUALSTO&product=MzgwU1ZJPVAkWQEQUALSTOEQUALSTO& storyId=86703 [accessed June 4, 2003].