The ASCUS:SIL ratio and the reference laboratory pathologist

Cytopathology

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 249-256

  Wachtel, Mitchell C ^a   Dahm, P F ^b  

^a St Joseph Regional Health Center   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance:squamous intraepithelial lesion ratio; Odds ratio; Prevalence; Quality assurance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; PATHOLOGIST; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE STANDARDS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0141992080     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2003.00075.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:390-6.
2. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Naryshkin S et al. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:440-4.
3. Juskevicius R, Zou KH, Cibas ES. An analysis of factors that influence the ASCUS/SIL ratio of pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:331-5.
4. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1994:34.
5. Tabbara SO, Faser C, Frost AR et al. Toward establishing a target value for the ASCUS:SIL ratio [abstract]. Acta Cytol 1995;39:989.
6. Hong IS, Marshalleck J, Williams RH et al. Comparative analysis of a liquid-based Pap test and concurrent HPV DNA assay of residual samples. A study of 608 cases. Acta Cytol 2002;46:828-34.
7. Ott RL. The multinomial experiment and chi-square goodness-of-fit test. In: An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 4th edn. Belmont: Duxbury Press; 1993:354-64.
8. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P et al. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy; current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;124:203-11.
9. Cohen J. Chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables. In: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press, Inc.; 1988:215-71.
10. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981:61-7, 138-41, 161-8.
11. Fisher LD, Van Belle G. The Bonferroni method (B-Method). In: Biostatistics: A Methodology for the Health Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1993:611-3.
12. Wachtel MS, Dahm PF. The ASCUS:SIL ratio and the reference laboratory pathologist [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 28th European Congress of Cytology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2002:35.
13. Solomon D, Henry MR. Cervical-vaginal cytologic nomenclature. In: Cytopathology of the Uterus, 2nd edn. Meisels A, Morin C (eds). Chicago: American Society of Clinical Pathologists; 1997:49-63.
14. Available at: bethesda2001.cancer.gov/post-wrkshp_recs.html.
15. Biscotti CV, O'Brien DL, Gero MA et al. Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear. Analysis of 400 split samples. J Reprod Med 2002;47:9-13.
16. Luthra UK, Chishti M, Dey P et al. Performance of monolayered cervical smears in a gynecology outpatient setting in Kuwait. Acta Cytol 2002;46:303-10.
17. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG et al. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-84.
18. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998;42:209-13.
19. Lousuebsakul V, Knutsen SM, Singh PN, Gram IT. Variables associated with squamous intraepithelial lesions among women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2001;23:355-61.
20. Becker E, Edelweiss MI, Nonnenmacher B, Bozzetti MC. Prevalence and epidemiologic correlates of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in women at low risk for cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:276-82.
21. Zuna RE, Moore W, Dunn ST. HPV DNA testing of the residual sample of liquid-based Pap test: utility as a quality assurance monitor. Mod Pathol 2001;14:147-51.
22. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L et al. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423-8.
23. Herrero R, Hildesheim A, Bratti C et al. Population-based study of human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia in rural Costa Rica. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:464-74.
24. Wachtel MS. The HPV positivity rate for any diagnosis depends on the underlying SIL prevalence [abstract]. In: Abstracts of the 28th European Congress of Cytology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing;2002:35.
25. Pincus MR. Interpreting laboratory results: reference values and decision making, In: Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods, 19th edn. Henry JB, ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company;1996:74-91.
26. Wachtel M, Paulson R, Plese C. Creation and verification of reference intervals. Lab Med 1995;26:593-9.
27. Woo J, Henry JB. Quality management, In: Clinical Diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods, 19th edn. Henry JB (ed.) Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company;1996:125-36.