How should adequacy of liquid-based cytology be defined?

Cytopathology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 165-167

  Desai, M ^a   Herbert, A ^b  

^a MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOLOGY; EDITORIAL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SMEAR; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33746429975     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00389.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. McQueen F. Duval E. The definition of an adequately cellular LBC specimen. Cytopathology 2006;17:168-74.
2. Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-78.
3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Use of Liquid-based Cytology for Cervical Cytology.Technology Appraisal 69. NICE; 2003.
4. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995;6:368-75.
5. O'Sullivan JP, A'Hern RP, Chapman PA et al. A case-control study of true-positive versus false-negative cervical smears in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III. Cytopathology 1998;9:155-61.
6. DeMay RM. Cytopathology of false negatives preceding cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1110-3.
7. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
8. Geyer JW, Carrico C, Bishop JW. Cellular constitution of Autocyte PREP® cervico-vaginal samples with biopsy-confirmed HSIL. Acta Cytol 2000;44:505 (abstract).
9. Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2003;47:605-10.
10. Bolick DR, Kerr J, Staley BE, Ke Lin K. Effect of cellularity in the detection rates of high grade and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Acta Cytol 2002;46:922-3 (abstract).
11. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122-32.
12. Davies S. The cervical smear test: does timing have an effect on sample adequacy?. Cytopathology 2006;17:182-86.
13. National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme Statistical Bulletin - England 2004-2005.
14. Fox R, Nix ABJ, Fielder H. A comparison of variability in Pap and liquid-based cytology inadequacy rates using Shewhart control charts. Cytopathology 2006;17:175-81.
15. The NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme: Priority Area: Adequacy of Liquid Based Cytology Specimens for Cervical Screening (05/41).