Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology - Surepath in the ontario screening program

Cancer

Volumn 102, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 362-367

  Colgan, Terence J ^a   Meg McLachlin, C ^b   Cotterchio, Michelle ^c,d   Hewlett, Robbi ^d   Seidenfeld, Allan M ^d,e   Mai, Verna M ^c,d  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d CANCER CARE ONTARIO   (Canada)

^e Inscyte Corporation   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical screening; Liquid based cytology; Papanicolaou test; SurePath; Thin layer cytology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SQUAMOUS CELL; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MICROTOMY; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONTARIO; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 10244236452     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20656     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:209-213.
5. 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.
6. Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap test: performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1999;87:105-112.
7. 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.
8. Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003;99:331-335.
9. 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.
10. Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:179-184.
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. Wilbur DC, Facik MS, Rutkowski MA, Mulford DK, Atkison KM. Clinical trials of the CytoRich specimen-preparation device for cervical cytology: preliminary results. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:24-29.
13. Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe JK, Grieves A, Bowditch R. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1997;19:239-245.
14. Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:41-46.
15. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:912-916.
16. Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med. 2001;46:353-358.
17. Sneed RM, Lerud KS. Clinical evaluation of the SurePath method and clinical follow-up [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:856.
18. 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) [monograph online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/lbc-pilot-evaluation.pdf [accessed March 30, 2004].
19. Noorani HZ, Brown A, Skidmore B, Stuart GC. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Technology Report No. 40. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, 2003.
20. TriPath Imaging, Inc. FDA approves enhanced labelling for TriPath Imaging's liquid based cytology [monograph online]. Available from URL: http://ir.thomsonfn.com/InvestorRelations/PubNewsStory.aspx?partner= 5100&storyld=86703 [accessed March 31, 2004].
21. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerdihg WI, 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.
22. National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian Cancer Statistics 2004. Toronto, Canada, 2004. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/ portal/cit_86751114/14/3/195986411niw_stats2004_en.pdf [accessed July 14, 2004].
23. Colgan TJ, McLachlin M, Cotterchio M, et al. Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytologic analysis: SurePath in the Ontario screening program [abstract]. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2004;8:244.
24. Marrett LD, Chiarelli AM, Nishri ED, Theis B. Cervical cancer in Ontario 1971-1996. Toronto: Division of Preventive Oncology, Cancer Care Ontario, 1999.
25. Cengel KA, Day SJ, Davis-Devine S, et al. Effectiveness of the SurePath liquid-based Pap test in automated screening and in detection of HSIL. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29:250-255.
26. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500-1505.
27. Adams KC, Absher KJ, Brill YM, Witzke DB, Davey DD. Reproducibility of subclassification of squamous intra-epithelial lesions: conventional versus ThinPrep Paps. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2003;7:203-208.
28. Chhieng DC, Talley LI, Roberson J, Gatscha RM, Jhala NC, Elgert PA. Interobserver variability: comparison between liquid-based and conventional preparations in gynecologic cytology. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002;96:67-73.
29. Renshaw AA, Young NA, Birdsong GG, et al. Comparison of performance of conventional and ThinPrep gynecologic preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecology Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:17-22.
30. College of American Pathologists Cytopathology Committee. PAP interlaboratory comparison program in cervico-vaginal cytopathology: 2003 PAP year end summary report. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 2003.