Evaluation of agreement between conventional and liquid-based cytology in cervical cancer early detection based on analysis of 2,091 smears: Experience at the Brazilian National Cancer Institute

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 545-549

  Girianelli, Vania Reis ^a   Thuler, Luiz Claudio Santos ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE CÂNCER   (Brazil)

^b NONE   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Evaluation studies; Kappa coefficient; Liquid based cytology; Pap smear

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 34548713546     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20699     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Brasil. Coordenação de Prevenção e Vigilância (Brasil). Estimates 2006 - Cancer Incidence in Brazil.Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2005. Available at: http://www.inca.gov.br. Retrieved November 29, 2005.
2. World Heath Organization. Cervical cancer screening in developing countries: Report of a WHO consultation.Geneva:WHO; 2002.
3. O'Sullivan JP. Observer variation in gynaecological cytopathology. Cytopathology 1998;9:6-14.
4. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis. II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in reescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol 1987;31:900-910.
5. Alves VAF, Bibbo M, Schmitt FCL, Milanezi F, Longatto-Filho A. Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid-based cytology: a morphologic study. Acta Cytol 2004;48:187-193.
6. Girianelli VR, Thuler LCS, Szklo M, et al. Comparison of HPV DNA tests and liquid based cytology with conventional cytology for the early detection of cervix uteri cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev 2006;15:504-510.
7. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde, Instituto Nacional de Câncer, Brasil. The Brazilian National Cancer Institute norms and recommendations. Basic recommendations for cervix cancer control in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Cancerologia 2000;46:23-33. Available at: http://www.inca.gov.br/rbc. Retrieved November 29, 2005.
8. Byrt T. How good is agreement? Epidemiology 1996;7:561.
9. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology beyond the basics. Maryland: Aspen; 2000.
10. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cervix cancer screening. Handbooks on cancer screening 2005, vol. 10. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.
11. Ferraz MGMC, Nicolau SM, Stavale JN, et al. Cervical biopsy-based comparison of a new liquid-based thin-layer preparation with conventional Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:220-226.
12. Biscotti CV, O'Brien DL, Gero MA, Gramlich TL, Kennedy AW, Easley KA. Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear: Analysis of 400 split samples. J Reprod Med 2002;47:9-13.
13. Chhieng DC, Talley LI, Roberson J, Gatscha RM, Jhala NC, Elgert PA. Interobserver variability: Comparison between liquid-based and conventional preparations in gynecologic cytology. Cancer 2002;96:67-73.
14. Baker JJ. Conventional and liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A comparison study with clinical and histologic follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:185-188.
15. 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;102:269-279.
16. Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: A comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 2003;99:331-335.
17. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999;87:48-55.
18. Pereira SMM, Longatto-Filho A, Utagawa ML, et al. Immunocytochemical expression of P16ink4a and Ki-67 In cytologically negative and equivocal Pap smears positive for oncogenic human papillomavirus. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2005;24:118-124.
19. Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA, Whitley MW, et al. Multiple high risk HPV infections are common in cervical neoplasia and young women in a cervical screening population. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:68-72.
20. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al. French Society of Clinical Cytology Study Group. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003;326:733-737. Available at: http://bmj.bmjjournals. com/cgi/content/full/326/7392/733. Retrieved March 29, 2006.
21. Hoehler FK. Bias and prevalence effects on Kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:499-503.
22. Cocchi V, Carretti D, Fanti S, et al. Intralaboratory quality assurance in cervical/vaginal cytology: evaluation of intercytologist diagnostic reproducibility. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:87-92.
23. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-1505.
24. Iverson DK. Impact of training on cytotechnologists' interpretation of gynecologic thin-layer preparations. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:230-235.