Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smear and SurePath® liquid-based cytology in the Copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer

Cytopathology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 187-194

  Kirschner, B ^a   Simonsen, K ^a   Junge, J ^a  

^a HVIDOVRE HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Conventional cervical cytology; Inadequate samples; Liquid based cytology; Screening programme; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CYTOLOGY; DENMARK; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

DENMARK; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33746459762     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00384.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in the carcinoma of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1941;42:193-206.
2. Cramer DW. The role of cervical cytology in the declining morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer. Cancer 1974;34:2018-27.
3. Kim K, Rigal RD, Patrick JR, et al. The changing trends of uterine cancer and cytology: a study of morbidity and mortality trends over a twenty year period. Cancer 1978;42:2439-49.
4. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985;29:1043-6.
5. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-84.
6. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven-month, 16 314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998;42:203-8.
7. Ring M, Bolger N, O'Donnell M, et al. Evaluation of liquid-based cytology in cervical screening of high-risk populations: a split study of colposcopy and genito-urinary medicine populations. Cytopathology 2002;13:152-9.
8. Malle D, Pateinakis P, Chakka E, Destouni C. Experience with a thin-layer, liquid-based cervical cytologic screening method. Acta Cytol 2003;47:129-34.
9. Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM. Cervical cytology after 2000: where to go? J Clin Pathol 2000;53:41-3.
10. Linder J. Recent advances in thin-layer cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:24-32.
11. Renshaw AA, Young NA, Birdsong GG, et al. Comparison of performance of conventional and ThinPrep gynecologic preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:17-22.
12. Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D. Comparison of the surepath liquid-based papanicolaou smear with the conventional papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 2004;102:269-79.
13. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261:737-43.
14. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of Automated and Semi-automated Cervical Screening Devices. Canberra, Commonwealth: Department of Health and Family Services; 1998.
15. 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:iii, 1-iii, 78.
16. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. N Z Med J 2001;114:311-3.
17. Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer B, Callicott J Jr, Husain M, Taylor D. Effectiveness of thin-layer preparations vs. conventional pap smears in a blinded, split-sample study. Extended cytologic evaluation. J Reprod Med 2001;46:880-6.
18. Mount S, Harmon M, Eltabbakh G, Uyar D, Leiman G. False positive diagnosis in conventional and liquid-based cervical specimens. Acta Cytol 2004;48:363-71.
19. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Subramanian S, et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:645-52.
20. Mitchell H, Medley G, Drake M. Quality control measures for cervical cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1988;32:288-92.
21. Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001;45:709-14.
22. Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G, Kitchener HC. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;354:1763-70.
23. Tibbs RF, Wong JY, Logrono R. Enhancing recovery of endocervical component on gynecologic cytology specimens processed by thin-layer technology. Acta Cytol 2003;47:172-6.
24. Selvaggi SM, Guidos BJ. Endocervical component: is it a determinant of specimen adequacy? Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:53-5.
25. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 2003;99:263-71.