Consistency of cytology diagnosis for cervical cancer between two laboratories

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 208-212

  Sriamporn, Supannee ^a   Kritpetcharat, Onanong ^b   Nieminen, Pekka ^c   Suwanrungraung, Krittika ^d   Kamsa Ard, Supot ^d   Parkin, D M ^e  

^a KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^d Srinagarind hospital   (Thailand)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer screening; Cytology; Reproducibility; Thailand

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABORATORY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; THAILAND; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THAILAND; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 24944530076     PISSN: 15137368     EISSN: 2476762X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Anttila A, Ronco G, Clifford G, et al (2004). Weiderpass E. Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries. Br J Cancer, 91, 935-41.
2. Chhieng DC, Talley LI, Roberson J, et al (2002). Interobserver variability: comparison between liquid-based and conventional preparations in gynecologic cytology. Cancer, 96, 67-73.
3. Cohen J (1960). A coefficient of aqreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement, 20, 37-46.
4. Confortini M, Carozzi F, Dalla Palma P, et al (2003). Interlaboratory reproducibility of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance report: a national survey. Cytopathology, 14, 263-8.
5. Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol, 43, 543-9.
6. Hakama M (ed) (2005). Cervix Cancer Screening. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Volume 10. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
7. Jones BA, Davey DD (2000). Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 124, 672-81.
8. Klinkhamer PJ, Vooijs GP, de Haan AF (1988). Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol, 32, 794-800.
9. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977). An application of hierarchical kappatype statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33, 363-74.
10. Luff RD (1992). The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. The Bethesda System Editorial Committee. Hum Pathol, 23, 719-21.
11. Papanicolaou GN (1954). Atlas of Exfoliative cytology, Boston, Massachusetts Commonweath Fund University press.
12. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2001). Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer, 94, 153-6.
13. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, et al (1994). Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Correlation of cytopathologic diagnoses with detection of highrisk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Patho, 102, 182-7.
14. Smith AE, Sherman ME, Scott DR, et al (2000). Review of the Bethesda System atlas does not improve reproducibility or accuracy in the classification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance smears. Cancer, 90, 201-6.
15. Sriamporn S, Pengsaa P, Hakama M, Suwanrungruang K, Parkin DM (2003). Cervix cancer in Khon Kaen, Northeast Thailand, 1985-1999. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 4, 312-8.
16. Sriamporn S, Parkin DM, Pisani P, Suwanrungruang K, Pengsaa P (2004). Behavioural risk factors for cervical cancer from a prospective study in Khon Kaen, Northeast Thailand. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 28, 334-9.
17. Sriplung H, Sontipong S, Martin N, et al (2003). Cancer in Thailand Vol. III 1995-1997. Bangkok Medical Publisher, Bangkok.
18. Stoler MH, Schiffman M (2001). Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUSLSIL Triage Study. JAMA, 285, 1500-5.
19. Woodhouse SL, Stastny JF, Styer PE, et al (1999). Interobserver variability in subclassification of squamous intraepithelial lesions: Results of the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 123, 1079-84.
20. Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ (2002). 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA, 287, 2120-9.
21. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al (1987). Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis. II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol, 31, 900-10.