Comparative sensitivities of ThinPrep and papanicolaou smear for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and combined AIS/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL): Comparison with HSIL

Cancer

Volumn 111, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 482-486

  Roberts, Jennifer M ^a,b   Thurloe, Julia K ^a  

^a Cytology Department   (Australia)

^b Symbion Laverty Pathology   (Australia)

Author keywords

Adenocarcinoma in situ; Liquid based cytology; Papanicolaou smear; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADENOCARCINOMA IN SITU; ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER SCREENING; CYTOLOGY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HIGH GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHEILAL LESION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 37349122147     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23117     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Sasieni P, Adams J. Changing rates of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix in England. Lancet. 2001;357:1490-1493.
2. Vizcaino AP, Moreno V, Bosch FX, Munoz N, Barros-Dios XM, Parkin DM. International trends in the incidence of cervical cancer: I. Adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous cell carcinomas. Int J Cancer. 1998;75:536-545.
3. Liu S, Semenciw R, Probert A, Mao Y. Cervical cancer in Canada: changing patterns in incidence and mortality. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2001;11:24-31.
4. Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, Lacey JV Jr, Devesa S. 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.
5. Schoolland M, Segal A, Allpress S, Miranda A, Frost FA, Sterrett GF. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Cancer. 2002;96:330-337.
6. Mitchell H, Hocking J, Saville M. Cervical cytology screening history of women diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a case-control study. Acta Cytol. 2004;48:595-600.
7. Smith HO, Padilla LA. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: sensitivity of detection by cervical smear: will cytologic screening for adenocarcinoma in situ reduce incidence rates for adenocarcinoma? Cancer. 2002;96:319-322.
8. Kinney W, Sawaya GF, Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M, Hiatt RA. Stage at diagnosis and mortality in patients with adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix diagnosed as a consequence of cytologic screening. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:167-171.
9. Erzen M, Mozina A, Bertole J, Syrjanen K. Factors predicting disease outcome in early stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;101:185-191.
10. Syrjanen K. Is improved detection of adenocarcinoma in situ by screening a key to reducing the incidence of cervical adenocarcinoma? Acta Cytol. 2004;48:591-594.
11. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Biro C, Hyne SG, Williams KE, Bowditch RC. Follow up of cytologic predictions of endocervical glandular abnormalities: histologic outcomes in 123 cases. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2005;9:71-77.
12. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Laverty CR. Subdividing atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance according to the Australian Modified Bethesda System: analysis of outcomes. Cancer. 2000;90:87-95.
13. Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC. The reliability of a cytological prediction of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;28:307-312.
14. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Humcevic J, Laverty CR. Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap smear in relation to prediction of adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:74-80.
15. Lee KR, Minter LJ, Granter SR. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;107:30-35.
16. Shin CH, Schorge JO, Lee KR, Sheets EE. Cytologic and biopsy findings leading to conization in adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:271-276.
17. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;43:81-85.
18. Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L, Ashfaq R. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer. 2002;96:338-343.
19. Ramsaroop R, Chu I. Accuracy of diagnosis of atypical glandular cells - conventional and ThinPrep. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34:614-619.
20. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23:19-22.
21. Wang N, Emancipator SN, Rose P, Rodriguez M, AbdulKarim FW. Histologic follow-up of atypical endocervical cells. Liquid-based, thin-layer preparation vs conventional Pap smear. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:453-457.
22. Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer. 2002;96:1-4.
23. Eltabbakh GH, Lipman JN, Mount SL, Morgan A. Significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;78:245-250.
24. Lee KR, Darragh TM, Joste NE, et al. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thinlayer preparations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:96-102.
25. Nasuti JF, Fleisher SR, Gupta PK. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:186-190.
26. Raab SS. Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:127-133.
27. Jeng CJ, Liang HS, Wang TY, Shen J, Yang YC, Tzeng CR. Cytologic and histologic review of atypical glandular cells (AGC) detected during cervical cytology screening. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2003;13:518-521.
28. Keyhani-Rofagha S, Brewer J, Prokorym P. Comparative cytologic findings of in situ and invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;12:120-125.
29. van Aspert-van Erp AJ, Smedts FM, Vooijs GP. Severe cervical glandular cell lesions with coexisting squamous cell lesions. Cancer. 2004;102:218-227.
30. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308-317.
31. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer. 2003;99:263-271.
32. 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.