Evaluation of cytologic screening results of the cervix

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 292-294

  Yalti, S ^a   Gurbuz B ^a   Bilgic R ^a   Cakar Y ^a   Eren, S ^a  

^a Zeynep Kamil Women Children Educ R ^*  (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ARTICLE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CELL TYPE; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURETTAGE; FEMALE; GRANULAR CELL TUMOR; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; SQUAMOUS EPITHELIUM; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

BIOPSY; CARCINOMA; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 15444376489     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15218.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. 1941. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:211-24.
2. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: a triumph and a tragedy JAMA 1989;261:737-43.
3. Van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP. False negative rate in cervical cytology. J Clin Pathol 1987;40:438-42.
4. Brotzman G, Apgar B. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: current management option. J Fam Pract 1994;39:271-8.
5. Kurman RJ, Malkasian GD Jr, Sedlis A, Solomon D. From Papanicolaou to Bethesda: the rationale for a new cervical cytologic classification. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:779-82.
6. Apgar BS, Zoschnick L, Wright TC Jr. The 2001 Bethesda System terminology. Am Fam Physician 2003;68:1992-8.
7. Lindheim S, Smith-Nguyen G. Aggressive evaluation for atypical squamous cells in Papanicolaou smears. J Reprod Med 1990;35:971-3.
8. Kobelin M, Kobelin CG, Burke L et al. Incidence and predictors of cervical dysplasia in patients with minimally abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:356-9.
9. Baldauf JJ, Ritter J Comparison of the risks of cytological surveillance of women with atypical cells or low-grade abnormalities on cervical smear: review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998;76:193-9.
10. McGrath CM. ASCUS in Papanicolaou smears. Problems, controversies, and potential future directions. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;117:62-75.
11. Raab SS, Bishop NS, Zaleski MS. Long-term outcome and relative risk in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;112:57-62.
12. Chang Chien CC, Lin H, Eng HL, Chang WK. Clinical implication of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with or without favoring high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on cervical smears. Changgeng Yi Xue Za Zhi 1999;22:579-85.
13. Chichareon SB, Tocharoenvanich ST. Situation analysis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance smears in Songklanagarind Hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2002;28:269-73.
14. Fallani MG, Penna C, Fambrini M, Marchionni M. Cervical cytological reports of ASCUS and LSIL. Cyto-histological correlation and implication for management. Minerva Ginecol 2002;54:263-9.
15. Emerson RE, Puzanov A, Brunnemer C, Younger C, Cramer H. Long-term follow-up of women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS). Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:153-7.
16. Boman F, Duhamel A, Trinh QD, Deken V, Leroy JL, Beuscart R. Evaluation of cytological screening for cancers and precancerous lesions of the cervix. Bull Cancer 2003;90:643-7.