Comparison of Performance of Conventional and ThinPrep Gynecologic Preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 128, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 17-22

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a,b   Young, Nancy A ^a,c   Birdsong, George G ^a,d   Styer, Patricia E ^a   Davey, Diane D ^e   Mody, Dina R ^a,f   Colgan, Terence J ^a,g  

^a Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^b BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

^c FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0345737058     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:278-284.
2. 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 (Cancer Cytopathol). 1999;87:48-55.
3. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CRA. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust. 1997;167:466-469.
4. 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.
5. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:308-317.
6. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, James LP, Berger BM, Bonfiglio TA. Thin-Prep™ processor clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:209-214.
7. 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.
8. Moss SM, Gray A, Legood R, Henstock E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC cervical screening pilot studies: first report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC (December 2002). Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/Ibc-pilot-evaluation.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2003.
9. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:209-213.
10. Corkill M, Knapp D, Hutchinson ML. Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula collection procedure. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 1998;2:12-16.
11. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice: a seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:203-208.
12. Sherman ME, Mendoza M, Lee KR, et al. Performance of liquid-based, thin-layer cervical cytology: correlation with reference diagnoses and human papillomavirus testing. Mod Pathol. 1998;11:837-843.
13. Weintraub J, Morabia A. Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;22:52-59.
14. 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. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:525-531.
15. Schorge JO, Saboorian MH, Hynan L, Ashfaq R. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002;96:338-343.
16. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep processor. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:215-219.
17. Chhieng DC, Talley LI, Roberson J, et al. Interobserver variability: comparison between liquid-based and conventional preparations in gynecologic cytology. Cancer (Cytopathol). 2002;96:67-73.
18. Sidawy MK, Tabbara SO. Reactive change and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in Papanicolaou smears: a cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9:423-429.
19. Yeoh GPS, Chan KW, Lauder I, Lam MB. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test in clinical practice: 6-month study of 16,541 cases with histological correlation in 220 cases. Hong Kong Med J. 1999;5:233-239.
20. Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap Test™ performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1999;87:105-112.
21. Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T, et al. A new look at cervical cytology: ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:499-504.
22. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, et al. ThinPrep processor clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:1-7.
23. Zahniser DJ, Sullivan PJ. Cytyc Corporation. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:37-44.
24. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Frable WJ, Rosenstock W, Lowell DM, Kraemer BB. Improving accuracy in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993;117:1193-1198.
25. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2002;6:127-143.
26. Wilbur DC, Dubeshter B, Angel C, Atkison KM. Use of thin-layer preparations for gynecologic smears with emphasis on the cytomorphology of high-grade intraepithelial lesions and carcinomas. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:201-211.
27. Clark SB, Dawson AE. Invasive squamous-cell carcinoma in ThinPrep specimens: diagnostic clues in the cellular pattern. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:1-4.
28. Renshaw AA, Davey DD, Birdsong GG, et al. Precision in gynecologic cytologic interpretation: a study from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:1413-1420.
29. Iverson DK. Impact of training on cytotechnologists' interpretation of gynecologic thin-layer preparations. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:230-235.