Frequency and outcome of cervical cancer prevention failures in the United States

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 128, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 817-824

  Raab, Stephen S ^a   Grzybicki, Dana Marie ^a   Zarbo, Richard J ^b   Jensen, Chris ^c   Geyer, Stanley J ^d   Janosky, Janine E ^a   Meier, Frederick A ^b   Vrbin, Colleen M ^a   Carter, Gloria ^a   Geisinger, Kim R ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^d WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Colposcopy; Papanicolaou test; Patient safety

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STANDARDIZATION; UNITED STATES; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; WOMEN'S HEALTH;

COLPOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASM STAGING; PATIENT CARE MANAGEMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 36249027090     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/97JHG6GLY69BVF4Y     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Kitchener HC, Castle PE, Cox JT. Chapter 7: achievements and limitations of cervical cytology screening. Vaccine. 2006;24(suppl 3):S63-S70.
2. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. Cancer. 2002;52:342-362.
3. Renshaw AA. An accurate and precise methodology for routine determination of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening. Cancer. 2001;93:86-92.
4. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002:287:295-304.
5. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, 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;367:122-132.
6. Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer CJ, et al. Chapter 9: clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine. 2006;24(suppl 3);S78-S89.
7. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration. Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA programs: regulations implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 57 Federal Register 7146 (1992) (codified at 42 CFR §493).
8. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of three methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA. 1999;281:347-353.
9. Lehtinen M, Herrero R, Mayaud P, et al. Chapter 28: studies to assess the long-term efficacy and effectiveness of HPV vaccination in developed and developing countries. Vaccine. 2006;24(suppl 3):S233-S241.
10. Lundberg GD. Acting on significant laboratory results [editorial]. JAMA. 1981;245:1762-1763.
11. Stenkvist B, Soderstrom J. Reasons for cervical cancer despite extensive screening. J Med Screen. 1996;3:204-207.
12. Kenter GG, Schooderwald EM, Koelma IA, et al. The cytological screening history of 469 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: does interval carcinoma exist? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996;75:400-403.
13. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Janosky JE, et al. Clinical impact and frequency of anatomic pathology errors in cancer diagnosis. Cancer. 2005;104:2205-2213.
14. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120:523-531.
15. Ferris DG, Litaker MS, ALTS Group. Prediction of cervical histologic results using an abbreviated Reid Colposcopic Index during ALTS. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:704-710.
16. van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:193-204.
17. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
18. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:214-226.
19. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Myers E. Chapter 19: cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Vaccine. 2006;24(suppl 3):S164-S170.
20. Colgan TJ, Clarke A, Hakh N, et al. Screening for cervical disease in mature women: strategies for improvement. Cancer. 2002;96:195-203.
21. Flowers LC, McCall MA. Diagnosis and management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2001;28:667-684, viii.
22. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
23. Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, et al. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976-2000. Cancer. 2004;100:1035-1044.
24. Etherington IJ, Luesley DM. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: controversies in diagnosis and treatment. J Lower Genit Tract Dis. 2001;5:94-98.
25. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993;12:186-192.
26. Battles JB, Kaplan HS, Van der Schaaf TW, et al. The attributes of medical event reporting systems: experience with a prototype medical event reporting system for transfusion medicine. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:231-238.
27. Rubin G, George A, Chinn DJ, et al. Errors in general practice: development of an error classification and pilot study of a method for detecting errors. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12:443-447.
28. Sirovich BR, Welch HG. The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:243-250.
29. Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, Zaleski MS, et al. Variability in cytologic-histologic correlation practices and implications on patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:893-898.
30. Raab SS, Stone CH, Wojcik EM, et al. Use of a new method in reaching consensus on the cause of cytologic-histologic correlation discrepancy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126:836-842.
31. Raab SS, Vrbin CM, Grzybicki DM, et al. Errors in thyroid gland fine-needle aspiration. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006:125:873-882.
32. Renshaw AA, Young ML, Holladay EB. Blinded review of Papanicolaou smears in the context of litigation. Cancer. 2004;102:136-141.
33. Vinh-Hung V, Bourgain C, Vlastos G, et al. Prognostic value of histopathology and trends in cervical cancer: a SEER population study. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:164 [Epub ahead of print].
34. Cox JT. AGUS Pap smears: a follow-up strategy. Obgyn Manage. 1998;27:74-97.
35. van Aspert-van Erp AJ, Smedts FM, Vooijs GP. Severe cervical glandular lesions and severe cervical combined lesions: predictive value of the Papanicolaou smear. Cancer. 2004;102:210-217.
36. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Hakama M. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:1017-1021.
37. Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Thomas EJ, et al. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:488-496.
38. Jones BA, Novis DA. Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 16,132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:665-671.