Liquid-based cervical cytology: A review of the literature with methods of evidence-based medicine

Cancer

Volumn 99, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 263-271

  Klinkhamer, Paul J J M ^a   Meerding, Willem J ^b   Rosier, Peter F W M ^c   Hanselaar, Antonius G J M ^d  

^a Stichting Laboratoria voor Pathologie en Medische Microbiologie   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO   (Netherlands)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

AutoCytePrep; Cervical cancer screening; Cervical cytology; Liquid based cytology; Thin layer; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CELL TYPE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CERVICAL CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CYTODIAGNOSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0141960805     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11673     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. van Ballegooijen M. Effects and costs of cervical cancer screening [Ph.D. thesis]. Rotterdam: Erasmus University, 1998.
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. BMJ. 1986;293:659-664.
3. Anonymous. National Institutes of Health consensus conference on cervical cancer. Bethesda, Maryland, April 1-3, 1996. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1996;21:1-148.
4. Vooijs GP, van Aspert-van Erp AJ, van't Hof-Grotenboer BE, Hanselaar AG. Parameters of quality control in cervical cytodiagnosis. In: Wied GL, Keebler CM, Rosenthal DL, Schenck U, Somrak TM, Vooijs GP, editors. Compendium on quality assurance, proficiency testing, and workload limitation in clinical cytology. Chicago: International Academy of Cytology, 1995:95-108.
5. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:680-689.
6. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810-819.
7. Payne N, Chilcott J, McCoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening. A report by the School of Health And Related Research (ScHARR), the University of Sheffield, for the NCCHTA on behalf of NICE. Sheffield, United Kingdom: Trent Institute for Health Services Research, 2000.
8. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 5. Rockville: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999.
9. 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. Christchurch: Clearing House for Health Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment, 2000.
10. 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 Assess. 1999;3:1-196.
11. Vassilakos P, Schwartz D, de Marval F, et al. Biopsy-based comparison of liquid-based, thin-layer preparations to conventional Pap smears. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:11-16.
12. Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:189-197.
13. Bishop JW. Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology. Preliminary data on 2,032 cases from a clinical trial site. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:15-23.
14. Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology. Comparison based on 2,156 cases. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:179-184.
15. 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. 1999;87:48-55.
16. Ferenczy A, Robitaille CS, Franco F, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC. Conventional cervical cytology vs. ThinPrep smears. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1136-1142.
17. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:209-213.
18. Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap Test: performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer. 1999;87:105-112.
19. Sheets EE, Constantine NM, Dinisco S, Dean B, Cibas ES. Colposcopically directed biopsies provide a basis for comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smears. J Gynecol Tech. 1995;1:27-33.
20. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the ThinPrep Pap Test® in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20:70-73.
21. Park IA, Lee SN, Chae SW, Park KH, Kim JW, Lee HP. Comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep Pap tests and conventional Papanicolaou smears on the basis of the histologic diagnosis: a clinical study of women with cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:525-531.
22. Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A, et al. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:519-524.
23. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:81-85.
24. Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L, Ashfaq R. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer. 2002;96:338-343.