Reliability of sparing papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as no further rewiew at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening: Survey of 30,658 cases with follow-up cytological screening

Cancer

Volumn 111, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 93-98

  Troni, Grazia Maria ^a   Cariaggi, Maria Paola ^a   Bulgaresi, Paolo ^a   Houssami, Nehmat ^b   Ciatto, Stefano ^a  

^a CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Computer assisted reading; Papanicolaou test; Screening

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

AUTOMATION; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; PREVALENCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 34247481498     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22578     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Patten SF Jr, Lee JS, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: II. Prospective and archival sensitivity studies. Cancer(Cytopathol) . 1997;81:343-347.
2. Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening. Acta Cytol. 1988;42:221-226.
3. Alasio LM, Alphandery C, Grassi P, Ruggeri M, De Palo G, Pilotti S. Performance of the AutoPap Primary Screening System in the detection of high-risk cases in cervicovaginal smears. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:704-708.
4. Tench WD. Validation of AutoPap primary screening system sensitivity and high-risk performance. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:296-302. Erratum in: Acta Cytol. 2002;46:611.
5. Wilbur D, Bonfiglio T, Rutkowski MA, et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC System for cervical cytologic abnormalities. Biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:127-132.
6. Confortini M, Bonardi L, Bulgaresi P, et al. A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap screening system as a primary screening and location-guided rescreening device. Cancer (Cytopathol). 2003;99:129-134.
7. Dudding N, Hewer EM, Lancucki L, Rice S. Rapid screening: a comparative study. Cytopathology. 2001;12:235-248. Comment in: Cytopathology. 2001;12:249-250.
8. Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Troni GM, Ciatto S. Quality control of the autopap screening system employed as a primary screening device: rapid review of smears coded as no further review. Tumori. 2006;92:276-278.
9. Broder S. From the National Institutes of Health. The 1991 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. JAMA. 1992;267:1892.
10. Cecchini S, Iossa A, Bonardi R, Ciatto S, Cariaggi P. Comparing two modalities of management of women with cytologic evidence of squamous or glandular atypia: early repeat cytology or colposcopy. Tumori. 1997;83:732-734.
11. Paci E, Crocetti E, Miccinesi G, et al.Tuscany Cancer Registry. In: Parkin DM, Whelan SL, Ferlay J, Teppo L, Thomas DB, eds. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol VIII. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications No. 155; 2002:362-363.
12. Bibbo M, Hawthorne C. Performance of the AutoPap primary screening system at Jefferson University Hospital. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:27-29.
13. Manrique EJ, Amaral RG, Souza NL, Tavares SB, Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC. Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure. Cytopathology. 2006;17:116-120.
14. Cecchini S, Grazzini G, Iossa A, Bartoli D, Ciatto S. Criteria for adequacy of cervical cytologic sampling. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:687.
15. Cecchini S, Grazzini G, Bonardi R, Ciatto S. Quality control in cytologic screening. Acta Cytol. 1993;37:436.