Dismantling of the U.S. cytotechnology educational infrastructure is premature and carries significant risks

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 132, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 154-158

  Austin, R Marshall ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CYTOLOGY; DNA DETERMINATION; EDITORIAL; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING TEST; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; WART VIRUS;

CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; CYTOLOGY; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; HEALTH RESOURCES; HUMANS; PATHOLOGY, CLINICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 38949213001     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (77)

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale. January 2003. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov. Accessed Dec.3, 2007.
2. Bogdanich W. Lax Laboratories: The Pap test misses much cervical cancer through labs' errors. Wall Street Journal. November 2, 1987.
3. Rubin, R. HPV Screening May Be Better Than Pap Test. USA Today, October 31, 2007.
4. Accredited Programs in Cytotechnology. The ASC Bulletin. 2007;63S:6-11.
5. Cox T, Cuzack J. HPV DNA Testing in cervical cancer screening: From evidence to policies. Gynecologic Oncology. 2006;103:8-11.
6. Wright TC. Update- New Developments That Are Changing Patient Care: Cervical Disease. OBG Management. 2007;19:52-60.
7. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, et al. Seminar: Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890-907.
8. Carmichael DE. The Pap Smear. Life of George N. Papanicolaou. Springfield, III: Charles C. Thomas, publisher; 1973.
9. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The Diagnostic Value of Vaginal Smears in Carcinoma of the Uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1941;42:193-206.
10. Cameron CS. Keynote Address. Cancer of the Uterus: Problem, Progress, and Promise. Cancer News. 1969;23:8-11.
11. Scott R, Ballard LA. Cytology and its Office Application as Viewed by the Clinician. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1962;5:175-195.
12. Papanicolaou GN. Atlas of Exfoliative Cytology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1954.
13. Erickson CC, Everett BE Jr, Graves LM, et al. Population screening for uterine cancer by vaginal cytology: preliminary examination of first results of 108,000 and second testing of 33,000 women. JAMA. 1956;62:167-173.
14. Christopherson WM, Parker JE, Drye JC. Control of cervical cancer: preliminary report on a community program. JAMA. 1962;182:179-182.
15. Stull GA. Accreditation in the Allied Health Professions. J Allied Health. 1989;18:425-435.
16. ASCP Board of Registry Certification: The Standard of Excellence for Over 75 Years. Available at http://www.ascp.org/Certification/pdf/BOR_history.pdf. Accessed Dec. 4, 2007.
17. Green GH. Cervical Carcinoma In Situ. An Atypical Viewpoint. Austr NZ J Obstet Gynecol. 1970;10:41-48.
18. Armstrong D. Lucrative Operation: How Some Doctors Turn a $79 Profit From a $30 Test. Physician Groups Add Markup To Work Done by Others, Despite Ethics Concerns. Wall Street Journal. September 30, 2005.
19. nd Sess, March 10, 1988. Washington DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988, p.24.
20. Janerich DT, Hadjmichael O, Schwartz PE, e tal. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Publ Health. 1995;85:791-794.
21. Lee KR, Ashfaq R Birdsong GG, et al. Comparisons of conventional Papanicolaou Smears and a fluid-based thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:278-274.
22. Koss LG, Sherman ME, Cohen MB, et al. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET) Testing System. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:1196-1203.
23. Patten SF, Lee KR, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: I. A prospective intended use study. Cancer Cytopathology. 1997;81:337-342.
24. Hutchinson ML, Eisenstein LM, martin JJ, Zahnhiser DJ. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:215-219.
25. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, MD, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional
26. Papanicolaou smears: A metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:308-317.
27. Ablulafia O, Pezzulo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:137-144.
28. Linder J, Keene J, Sheets E. Cervical Cancer Reduction Through Higher Sensitivity Pap Testing: Observed vs. Calculated Effects. Cancer Cytopathology. 2007;111S: 369-370.
29. Deutsch C. Deal to Merge 2 Health Firms Aimed at Women. New York Times. May 21, 2007.
30. Tripath Imaging. Becton Dickinson agrees to buy Tripath for around 350 mln usd. Available at http://www.advfn.com/news_Becton-Dickinson-agrees-to-buy- Tripath-for-around-350-mln-usd_16767512.html. Accessed Dec 5, 2007.
31. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, et al. The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology: comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:214-220.
32. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, etal. Assisted Primary Screening Using the ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123:281-287.
33. Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, et al. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1-207.
34. Davey E, Irwig L, Mackaskill P, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335(7609):31.
35. Solomon D. Comparison of Three Management Strategies for Patients with Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance: Baseline Results from a Randomized Trial. J. Nat Cancer Inst. 2001;93:293-299.
36. Zahn CM. Human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct in primary screening: is it prime time? Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:617-8.
37. Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Mielzynska-Lohnas I, et al. Results of human papillomavirus DNA testing with the hybrid capture 2 assay are reproducible. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40:1088-1090.
38. Lorincz AT, Castle PE, Sherman ME, et al. Viral load of human papillomavirus and risk of CIN3 or cervical cancer. Lancet. 2002;360:228-229.
39. Castle PE, Wacholder S, Lorincz AT, et al. A prospective study of high-grade cervical neoplasia risk among human papillomavirus-infected women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1406-1414.
40. Castle PE, Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, et al. Absolute risk of a subsequent abnormal pap among oncogenic human papillomavirus DNA-positive, cytologically negative women. Cancer. 2002;95:2145-2151.
41. Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, et al. Baseline cytology, human papillomavirus testing, and risk for cervical neoplasia: a 10-year cohort analysis. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:46-52.
42. Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, et al. Comparison between prototype hybrid capture 3 and hybrid capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:4022-4030.
43. Khan KJ, Castle PE, Lorincz AT, et al. The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1072-1079.
44. Summary Minutes of the Microbiology Devices Panel Meeting Open Session December 8, 2000. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/minutes/ 3675m1.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2007.
45. Wright TC, Cox TR, Massad LS, et al. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2120-2129.
46. Digene Corporation Website. Continuing Medical Education. Available at http://www.digene.com/labs/labs_hpv_07.html. Accessed December 5, 2007.
47. Society News. American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. J Lower Genital Tract. 2000;4:231.
48. Summary Minutes of the Microbiology Devices Panel Meeting Open Session. March 8, 2002. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/docket/ac/02/minutes/ 3846m2.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2007.
49. Kulasingham SL, Kim JJ, Lawrence WF, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Triage Study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:92-100.
50. Solomon D, Breen N, McNeel T. Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States and the potential impact of implementation of screening guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:105-111.
51. Bidus MA, Maxwell GL, Kulasingham S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:997-1005.
52. Wright TC, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:346-355.
53. Wright TC, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:340-345.
54. Castle PE, Sideri M, Jeronimo J, et al. Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:356.e1-6.
55. Netherlands' Qiagen Buying Digene for $1.6 Billion. June 4, 2007. Reuters UK. Available at http://uk.reuters.com/article/companyNews/ idUKN0341150820070603. Accessed December 6, 2007.
56. Davies P, Arbyn M, Dillner J, et al. A report on the current status of European research on the use of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:791-796.
57. Cuzick J. HPV Testing Versus Routine Cervical Screening. HPV Today. 2007;10:5.
58. Cuzick J, Mayrand MH, Ronco G, et al. New Dimensions in Cervical Cancer Screening. Vaccine. 2006;24S3:S3/90-S3/97.
59. Pierce L, Gibson C, Staub J, et al. Case Studies and Expert Commentary. Digene Corporation. Distributed at Corporation-sponsored Medical Staff Dinner Presentation. March, 2007.
60. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer Preventive Strategies. Cervix cancer screening. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention No 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon (2005).
61. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Dinshaw KA, et al. A cluster randomized controlled trial of visual, cytology, and human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer in rural India. Intl J Cancer. 2005;116:617-623.
62. De Cremoux P, Coste J, Sastre-Garau X, et al. Efficiency of the hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA test in cervical cancer screening. A study by the French Society of Clinical Cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:490-499.
63. Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R, et al. Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;83:439-444.
64. Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Wheeler P, et al. HPV testing in routine cervical screening: cross sectional data from the ARTISTIC trial. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:56-61.
65. DeSai M, on Behalf of the Artistic Study Group. Artistic Trial Update. A Randomized Trial to Improve Cytology. Presented at Modern Cervical Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Prevention: A European Summit on the Distinct and Complementary Roles of Cytology and HPV Vaccination. June 2, 2007, Barcelona, Spain.
66. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Segnan N, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335:28.
67. Ronco G, Segnan N, Girogi-Rossi P, et al. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:765-774.
68. Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology, http://www.siapec.it/. Accessed December 7, 2007.
69. Mayrand MH, Duarto-Franco O, Rodrigues I, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1579-1588.
70. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1589-1597.
71. Zhao C, Elishaev EE, Yuan K, Yu J, Austin RM. Very Low Human Papillomavirus DNA Prevalence in Mature Women With Negative Computer-Imaged Liquid-Based Pap Tests. Cancer Cytopathology. 2007;111:292-297.
72. Jeronimo J, Schiffman M. Colposcopy at the crossroads. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006,195:349-353.
73. Chan JK, Berek JS. Impact of the Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine on Cervical Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2975-2982.
74. Jhala D, Eltoum IA. Impact of expected changes in national Papanicolaou test volume on the cytotechnology labor market: an impending crisis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128:665-670.
75. Covell JL, Stoler M. Human papillomavirus testing, vaccination, and gynecologic screening: fight or flight? Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128:726-728.
76. Schiffman M. Integration of human papillomavirus vaccination, cytology, and human papillomavirus testing. Cancer. 2007;111:145-153.
77. Arbyn M, Dillner J. Review of current knowledge on HPV vaccination: an appendix to the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. J Clin Virol. 2007;38:189-197.