The pivotal role of the pathology laboratory in the context of a Singapore cervical cancer screening programme

Singapore Medical Journal

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 257-266

  Chang, Alexander R ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Cervix; Cytology; Laboratory standards; Screening

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DEVICE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; LABORATORY TEST; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SAMPLING; SINGAPORE; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; WART VIRUS;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; MASS SCREENING; PATHOLOGY; SINGAPORE; SPECIMEN HANDLING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 3042675253     PISSN: 00375675     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Johannesson G, Geirsson G, Day N. The effect of mass screening in Iceland, 1965-74, on the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 1978; 21:418-25.
2. Day NE. Effect of cervical cancer screening in Scandinavia. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63:714-8.
3. ICRF Co-ordinating Committee on Cervical Screening. Organization of a programme for cervical cancer screening. Br Med J 1984; 289:894-5.
4. Gay J, Donaldson L, Goellner J. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985; 29:1043-6.
5. Chang AR. Obtaining the ideal cervical smear. Professional Bulletin Cancer Society of New Zealand: 1991 report no 2; 1-15.
6. Chang AR. Colposcopy in the management of women with abnormal cervical smears. Professional Bulletin Cancer Society of New Zealand: 1989 report no 2; 1-6.
7. Rylander E, Negative smears in women developing invasive cervical cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1977; 56:115-8.
8. Kivlahan C, Ingram E. Papanicolaou smears without end cervical cells. Are they adequate? Acta Cytol 1986; 30:258-60.
9. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
10. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287:2114-9.
11. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: a triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989; 261:73743.
12. August N. Cervicography for evaluating the "atypical" Papanicolaou smear. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:89-94.
13. Dressel DM, Wilbur DC. Atypical immature squamous metaplastic cells in cervical smear: association with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and carcinoma of the cervix (abstract). Acta Cytol 1992; 36:630.
14. Soutter WP, Wisdom S, Brough AK, Monaghan JM. Should patients with mild atypia in a cervical smear be referred for colposcopy? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93:70-4.
15. Chang AR. Medical laboratory accreditation: a Hong Kong perspective. Pathology 2002; 34:130-2.
16. White GH. Accreditation the Australian experience. Ann Clin Biochem 1996; 33:273-83.
17. Maynard JH. The regulation of medical laboratories in Australia. Clin Lab Med 1991; 11:777-91.
18. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101:215-9.
19. Ayre JE. Selective cytology smear for the diagnosis of cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1947; 53:609-17.
20. Chang AR. Experience with a new cervical smear sampling device. Hong Kong Med J 1996; 2:248-52.
21. Wilbur DC. New technology in gynecologic cytology: automation in cytology screening and thin-layer preparation techniques. In: Bonfiglio TA, Erozan YS, eds. Gynecologic Cytopathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997.
22. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CR. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust 1997; 167:466-9.
23. Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations: a review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:178-84.
24. Grohs DH. Impact of automated technology on the cervical cytologic smear: A comparison of cost. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:165-70.
25. McNeil C. New Pap test technologies hit heavy seas but sales keep flying. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:1327-9.
26. Rosenthal DL. Automation and the endangered future of the Pap test. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:738-49.
27. Lee JSJ, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:221-6.
28. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ. The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology. Comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:214-20.
29. Hariri J, Junge J. Improvement of AutoPap 300 results by exclusion of hypocellular smears. Cytopathol 2000; 11:398-9.
30. Chang AR, Lin WF, Chang A. Can technology expedite the cervical cancer screening process? A Hong Kong experience utilizing the AutoPap® primary screening system with location guided screening capability. Am J Clin Pathol 2002; 117:437-43.
31. Dobson R. Health authority admits mistakes over smear tests (news). Br Med J 1998; 317:368.
32. Payne D. Thousands of smear tests reviewed (news). Br Med J 1999; 318:1231.
33. New Zealand Ministry of Health: Gisborne Cervical Screening Inquiry 2001. Available at: http://www.csi.mg.nz/. Accessed May 3, 2004.
34. Mayor S. NHS cervical screening programme to introduce liquid based cytology (news). Br Med J 2003; 327:48-9.
35. Duke University, an Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR).The Pap Test Still Best Bet, but New Technologies Show Promise of Improving Screening Outcomes. Available at: http://www.ahcpr.gov/news/press/pr1999/cytopr.htm. Accessed January 21, 1999.