The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): A web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 system for classifying cervical cytology

Cancer

Volumn 111, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 15-25

  Sherman, Mark E ^a   Dasgupta, Abhijit ^a   Schiffman, Mark ^a   Nayar, Ritu ^b   Solomon, Diane ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bethesda System; Cervix; Cytology; Internet; Reproducibility; Screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BETHESDA SYSTEM; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL LABORATORY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERNET; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST; NOMENCLATURE; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCREENING TEST; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ANATOMY, ARTISTIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 33847111559     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22423     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The Bethesda System 2001: terminology for reporting the results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
2. Comment in: JAMA. 2002;287:2140-2141.
3. Kurman RJ, Solomon D, Nayar R, Davey DD, Wilbur DC, eds. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology (2d ed). New York: Springer; 2004.
4. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Toward optimal laboratory use. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytology and histologic interpretations. Realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA. 2001;285:1500-1505.
5. Url: http://www.cytopathology.org/NIH/
6. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates. 2003 practices of participants in the American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:1224-1229.
7. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et 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.
8. Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, Brown JL, Becker LA, Grant WD. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:1040-1046.
9. Bosch FX, de Sanjose S. Chapter 1. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer-burden and assessment of causality. J Natl Cancer Monogr. 2003;2-13.
10. Selvaggi SM. Implications of low diagnostic reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic diagnoses. JAMA. 285;1506-8.
11. Confortini M, Carozzi F, Palma PD, et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance report: a national survey. Cytopathology. 2003;14:263-268.
12. Sherman ME, Castle PE, Solomon D, for the ASCUS LSIL Triage Group. Cervical cytology of atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H): characteristics and histologic outcomes. Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:298-305.
13. The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/ Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with cytologic evidence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: baseline data from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:397-402.
14. Colgan TJ, Woodhouse SL, Styer PE, Kennedy M, Davey DD. Reparative changes and the false-positive/false-negative Papanicolaou test. A study from the College of American Pathologist Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:134-140.
15. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology: correlation of cytopathologic diagnoses with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;102:182-187.
16. Pitman MB, Cibas ES, Powers CN, Renshaw AA, Frable WJ. Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear. Cancer Cytopathol. 2002;96:128-134.
17. Zuna RE, Moore W, Dunn ST. HPV DNA testing of the residual sample of liquid-based PAP test: utility as a quality assurance monitor. Mod Pathol. 2001;14:147-151.
18. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer Cytopathol. 2001;93:8-15.
19. Hildesheim A, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. Risk factors for rapid-onset cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:571-577.
20. Eichhorn JH, Brauns TA, Gelfand JA, Crothers BA, Wilbur DC. A novel automated screening and interpretation process for cervical cytology using the internet transmission of low-resolution images. A feasibility study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2005;105:199-206.