Liquid based cytology in cervical cancer screening

British Medical Journal

Volumn 335, Issue 7609, 2007, Pages 1-2

  Denton, Karin J ^a  

^a SOUTHMEAD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL LABORATORY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; STAFF TRAINING; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 34447531749     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39262.506528.47     Document Type: Editorial

References (13)

1. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Mathews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249-56.
2. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Palma PD, Naldoni C, et al. Accuracy of liquid based cytology versus conventional cytology: overall results of the new technologies for cervical screening (NTCC) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;335:28-31.
3. Davey E, Irwig L, Macaskill P, D'Assuncoa J, Richards A, Farnsworth A. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31-5.
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Liquid based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review. London: NICE, 2003. (Technology appraisal guidance No 69.) http://guidance.nice.org.uk/page. aspx?o=65586
5. Medical Services Advisory Committee of Australia. Liquid based cytology for cervical screening: assessment report. 2002. www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/ref12a-1$FILE/ msacref12a.pdf
6. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid based cytology for cervical screening. London: NICE, 2002. (Technology appraisal guidance No 5.) www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=82877
7. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122-32.
8. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, Hulman G, Kitchener H, Luesley D, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003;362:1871-6.
9. Davey E, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, D'Assuncao J, Richards A, et al. Cervical cytology reading times: a comparison between Thin Prep Imager and Conventional methods. Diag Cytopathol 2007 (in press).
10. NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. A comparison of automated technology and manual cervical screening (Mavaric). 26 June 2007. www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/project/1462.asp
11. Moss SM, Gray A, Marteau T, Legood R, Henstock E, Maissi E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC cervical screening pilot studies. Report to the Department of Health, October 2004. www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/evaluation-hpv- 2006feb.pdf
12. NHS Information Centre. Cervical screening programme. December 2006. www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/csp0506
13. Williams AR. Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared overtwo 12-month periods. Cytopathology 2006;17:82-5.