Comparison of two preparation methods for endocervical evaluation

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 742-748

  Hye, Sun Kim ^a   Jong, Sook Park ^a   Ji, Young Park ^c   Sung, Ran Hong ^a   Seok, Ju Seong ^b   Hy, Sook Kim ^a,e   Wilbur, David C ^d  

^a Kyungpook National University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b CHA University   (South Korea)

^c Kyungpook National University Hospital   (South Korea)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e Kwandong University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cervical smears; Endocervical brush cytology; SurePath

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; COLPOSCOPY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE SEVERITY; ENDOCERVICAL BRUSH CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TISSUE PREPARATION; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE ENDOCERVIX; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 34548818497     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000325837     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Weitzman GA, Korhonen MO, Reeves KO, Irwin JF, Carter TS, Kaufman RH: Endocervical brush cytology: An alternative to endocervical curettage? J Reprod Med 1988;33:677-683
2. Andersen W, Frierson H, Barber S, Tabbarah S, Tylor P, Underwood P: Sensitivity and specificity of endocervical curettage and the endocervical brush for the evaluation of the endocervical canal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159:702-707
3. Hoffman MS, Sterghos S Jr, Gordy LW, Gunasekaran S, Cavanagh D: Evaluation of the cervical canal with endocervical brush. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:573-577
4. Mogensen ST, Bak M, Dueholm M, Frost L, Knoblauch NO, Praest J, Svanholm H: Cytobrush and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of dysplasia and malignancy of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:69-73
5. Klam S, Arseneau J, Mansour N, Franco E, Ferenczy A: Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:90-94
6. Boardman LA, Meinz H, Steinhoff MM, Heber WW, Blume J: A randomized trial of the sleeved cytobrush and the endocervical curette. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:426-430
7. Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, Husain M, Howell LP, Mcintosh KM, Taylor DA, Sadeghi MH: Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1998;42:189-197
8. Vassilakos P, Saurel J, Rondez R: Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte PREP liquid-based preparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol 1999;43:65-68
9. Vassilakos P, Schwartz D, Marval F, Yousfi L, Broquet G, Mathez-Loic F, Campana A, Major A: Biopsy-based comparison of liquid-based, thin-layer preparations to conventional Pap smears. J Reprod Med 2000;45:11-16
10. Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bisho JW: AutoCyte Prep® system vs. conventional cervical cytology: Comparison based on 2,156 cases. J Reprod Med 2000;45:179-184
11. Tench W: Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med 2000;45:912-916
12. Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M: Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. 2001;46:353-358
13. Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer Ballicott 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;46:880-886
14. 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 Cytopathol 2004;102:269-279
15. Colgan TJ, McLachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seidenfeld AM, Mai VM: Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology: SurePath in the Ontario screening program. Cancer Cytopathol 2004;102:362-367
16. Sass MA: Use of a liquid-base, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital: Impact on cytology performance and productivity. Acta Cytol 2004;48:17-22
17. Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG: Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:41-46
18. Filho AL, Pereira SMM, Di Loreta C, Utagawa ML, Makabe S, Maeda MYS, Marques JA, Satoro CLF, Castelo A: DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears in the diagnosis of cervical lesions: Study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation. Gynecol Oncol 2005;97:497-500
19. Selvaggi SM: Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions involving endocervical glands on ThinPrep® cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;26:409
20. Wilbur DC, Dubeshter B, Angel C, Atkison KM: Use of Thin-Layer preparation for gynecologic smears with emphasis on the cytomorphology of high-grade intraepithelial lesions and carcinomas. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;14:201-211
21. Kurtycz DF, Hoerl HD: Thin-layer technology: Tempered enthusiasm. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:1-5