Comparison of the SurePath™ liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study

Cancer

Volumn 102, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 269-279

  Fremont Smith, Maurice ^a   Marino, James ^a   Griffin, Bryan ^b   Spencer, Lynn ^b   Bolick, David ^c  

^a Seacoast Pathology   (United States)

^b Chappell Joyce Pathology Association   (United States)

^c AmeriPath UT Ref Pathology Services   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervicovaginal smear; Conventional slide; Cytology; Liquid based; Papanicolaou (Pap) smear; SurePath ; Thin layer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL RECORD; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TISSUE SECTION; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOPSY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOPSY; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 5644240986     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20599     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Bishop J, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol. 1998;42(1):189-197.
2. Naryshkin S, Davey D. Terminology of false negative and false positive Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;14:1-2.
3. Farrington C, Manning G. Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk. Stat Med. 1990;1:1447-1454.
4. Kotz, S, Johnson NL, Campbell B. Statistical differentials, method of. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL, editors. Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, volume 8. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1988:646.
5. DeMay RM. The art and science of cytopathology. Chicago: ASCP Press, 1996:101
6. Syrjanen K, Kataja V, Yliskpski M, Chang F, Syrjanen S, Saarikoski S. Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus lesions does not substantiate the biologic relevance of the Bethesda System. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79(5 Pt 1):675-682.
7. Lox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D; ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(6):1406-1412.
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, Griffin S, Megavand E, Campana A. CytoRich liquid-based cervical cytology test: screening results in a routine cytopathology service. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:198-202.
10. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:912-915.