Papanicolau smears: Reducing the false negative rate by improving the method

Harefuah

Volumn 143, Issue 3, 2004, Pages

  Biran, Galya ^a   Levy, Tally ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Autopap; Papanicolau smear; Papnet; Thinprep

Indexed keywords

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CYTOMETRY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; INSTRUMENTATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; VAGINA SMEAR;

FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 3042702904     PISSN: 00177768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Richart RM, Screening the next century. Cancer, 1995; 76: 1919-1927.
2. Lieu D, The Papanicolaou smear: its value and limitations. J Fam Pract, 1996: 42; 391-399.
3. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER & al, Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of Cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med, 2000; 132: 810-819.
4. Montz FJ, Farber FL, Bristow RE & al, Impact of increasing Papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: a modeled cost and outcomes analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 2001; 97: 781-788.
5. Hatch KD & Hacker NF, Intraepithelial disease of the Cervix and Vagina. In Novak's Gynecology 12th Edition 1996, pp 447-486.
6. Sawaya GF & Washington AE, Cervical cancer screening: which techniques should be used and why? Clin Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 42: 922-938.
7. Menczer J, The case against cytological mass screening for cervical cancer in Israel. Harefuah, 1992; 122: 802-804.
8. Frable WJ, Does a Zero error standard exist for the Papanicolaou smear? Arch Pathol Lab Med, 1997; 121: 301-310.
9. Bishop JW, Marshall CJ & Bentz JS, New technologies in Gynecologic cytology. J Reprod Med, 2000; 45: 701-719.
10. Bain RW & Crocker DW, Rapid onset of cervical cancer in an upper socioeconomic group. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1983; 146: 366-371.
11. Wein GV, Farnsworth A & Hacker NF, Cervical carcinoma after negative Pap smear: evidence against rapid-onset cancers. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 1992; 2: 318-322.
12. Spitzer M, Cervical screening adjuncts: Recent advances. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1998; 179: 544-65.
13. Sawaya GF, Brown AD, Washington AE & Garber AM, Current approaches to cervical cancer screening. N Engl J Med, 2001; 21: 1603-1607.
14. Buntinx F & Brouwers M, Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormalities in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized studies. BMJ, 1996; 313: 1285-1290.
15. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG & al, Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and fluid-based, Thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol, 1997; 90: 278-284.
16. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R & al, Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system. Cancer, 1998; 84: 273-280.
17. Papillo JL, Zarka MA & John TL, Evaluation of the Thin Prep pap test in clinical practice. Acta Cytol, 1998; 42: 203-208.
18. Guidos BJ & Selvaggi SM, Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test™ in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol, 1999; 20: 70-73.
19. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L & Ndubisi B, Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional smears: A metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2001; 185: 308-317.
20. Inhorn S, Validation of the ThinPrep pap test for cervical cancer diagnosis. J Lower Genital Tract Dis, 1998; 2: 208-212.
21. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT & al, Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer, 1997; 81: 89-97.
22. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB & al, Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA, 1999; 281: 1605-1610.
23. FDA approves expanded use of HPV test. FDA Press Release Archives, March 2003.
24. Vasilev SA, Paying for prevention standardizing the measurement of the value of health-care intervention. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am, 2002; 29(4): 613-643.
25. Sedlacek T, Cooper A, Cervical cancer screening: what is costeffectiveness? Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 1999; 3: S1-7.
26. Marshall CJ, Rowe L & Bentz JS, Improved quality control detection of false-negative pap smears using the AutoPap 300 QC system. Diagn Cytopathol, 1999; 20: 170-174.
27. Patten SF, Lee JSJ & Wilbur DC, The AutoPap 300 QC ststem multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears. Cancer, 1997; 81: 337-342.
28. Lee JSJ, Wilbur P, Kuan L & al, AutoPap system performance in screening for low prevalence and small cell abnormalities. Acta Cytol, 1997; 41: 56-64.
29. Ku N, Automated Papanicolaou smear analysis as a screening tool for female lower genital tract malignancies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 1999; 11: 41-43.
30. Meerding WJ, Doorneward H, Van Ballejooije M & al, Cost analysis of Papnet-assisted vs. conventional pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears. Acta Cytol, 2001; 45: 28-35.
31. Bosanquet N, Colema D, Dore CJ & al, Assessment of automated primary screening on Papnet of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trail. Lancet, 1999; 353: 1381-1385.
32. Koss LG, Sherman ME, Cohn MB & al, Significant reduction in the rate of false negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (Papnet testing system). Hum Pathol, 1997; 28: 1196-1203.
33. Brown AD, Garber AM, Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA, 1999; 281: 347-353.
34. Mango LJ, Radensky PW, Interactive neural-network-assissted screening. Acta Cytol, 1998; 42: 233-245.
35. Solomon D, The 2001 Bethesda system terminiology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA, 2002; 287: 2114-2119.