Quality of follow-up of women with high grade squamous intra-epithelial lesion (HGSIL) cervical smears: Results from a population-based organised screening programme

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Volumn 113, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 234-239

  Monnet, Elisabeth ^a   Marquant, Arielle ^a   Genin, Pascal ^a   Mauny, Fréderic ^a   Carbillet, Jean Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE FRANCHE COMTÉ   (France)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer screening; Clinical audit; Follow up; HGSIL

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANAMNESIS; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH PROGRAM; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL AUDIT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 1842506713     PISSN: 03012115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.09.043     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Linos A., Riza E., van Bakegooijen M. Cervical cancer screening. Eur. J. Cancer. 36:2000;2175-2176.
2. Coleman D., Day N., Douglas G.et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Europe against cancer programme. Eur. J. Cancer. 29A:1993;S1-S38.
3. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer; 1994.
4. ANAES. Conduite à tenir devant un frottis anormal du col de l'utérus. Paris: ANAES; 1999.
5. SAS Institute Inc., SAS system. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1990.
6. Mehta C, Patel N. StatXact 4 for Windows. Cambridge, MA: Cytel Software Corporation; 1999.
7. Linos A., Riza E. Comparisons of cervical cancer screening programmes in the European Union. Eur. J. Cancer. 36:2000;2260-2265.
8. Schaffer P., Sancho-Garnier H., Fender M., Dellenbach P., Carbillet J.P., Monnet E.et al. Cervical cancer screening in France. Eur. J. Cancer. 36:2000;2215-2220.
9. National cancer institute workshop The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931-4.
10. Bigaard J., Hariri J., Lynge E. Cervical cancer in Denmark. Eur. J. Cancer. 36:2000;2198-2204.
11. Kreuger F.A.F., Beerman H., Nijs H.G.T., van Ballegooijen M. Positive diagnostic values and histological detection ratios from the Rotterdam cervical screening programme. Int. J. Epidemiol. 27:1998;377-381.
12. Yabroff K.R., Kerner J.F., Mandelblat J.S. Effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening. Prev. Med. 31:2000;429-439.
13. Lawson H.W., Lee N.C., Thomas S.F., Henson R., Miller D.S. Cervical cancer screening among low-income women: results of a national screening program, 1991-1995. Obstet. Gynecol. 92:1998;745-752.
14. Teale G., Etherington I., Luesley D., Jordan J. An audit of standards and quality in a teaching hospital colposcopy clinic. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 106:1999;83-86.
15. Dodd L.G., Sneige N., Villareal Y.et al. Quality assurance study of simultaneously sampled non-correlating cervical cytology and biopsies. Diagn. Cytopathol. 9:1993;138-144.
16. Anderson M.B., Jones B.A. False positive cervicovaginal cytology. A follow-up study. Acta Cytol. 41:1997;1697-1700.
17. Milne D.S., Wadehra V., Mennim D., Wagstaff T.I. A prospective follow up study of women with colposcopically unconfirmed positive cervical smears. Br J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 106:1999;38-41.
18. Vikki M., Pukkala E., Hakama M. Risk of cervical cancer subsequent to a positive screening cytology: follow-up in Finland. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 79:2000;576-579.
19. Howells R.E., O'Mahony F., Tucker H., Millinship J., Jones P.W., Redman C.W. How can the incidence of negative specimens resulting from large loop excision of the cervical transformation zone be reduced? BJOG. 107:2000;1075-1082.
20. Ibrahim S.N., Krigman H.R., Coogan A.C.et al. Prospective correlation of cervicovaginal cytologic and histologic specimens. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 106:1996;319-324.