Interobserver reproducibility with LiquiPrep™ liquid-based cervical cytology screening in a developing country

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 92-96

  Settakorn, Jongkolnee ^a   Rangdaeng, Samreung ^a   Preechapornkul, Natchanun ^a   Nateewatana, Sudaporn ^a   Pongsiralai, Kampol ^a   Srisomboon, Jatupol ^a   Thorner, Paul S ^a  

^a Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer screening; Liquid based cytology; LiquiPrep ; Papanicolaou

Indexed keywords

EID: 58349106332     PISSN: 15137368     EISSN: 2476762X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Alves V.A., Bibbo M., Schmitt F.C., Milanezi F. & Longatto Filho A. (2004). Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid-based cytology. A morphologic study. Acta Cytol, 48, 187-93.
2. Bishop J.W., Bigner S.H., Colgan T.J., et al (1998). Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol, 42, 189-97.
3. Bolick D.R., Bolick R.E., Coates F., et al (2003). Laboratory implementation of human papillomavirus testing. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 127, 984-90.
4. Cheung A.N., Szeto E.F., Leung B.S., Khoo U.S. & Ng A.W. (2003). Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer, 99, 331-5.
5. Chhieng D.C., Talley L.I., Roberson J., et al(2002). Interobserver variability: comparison between liquid-based and conventional preparations in gynecologic cytology. Cancer, 96, 67-73.
6. Crum C.P., Genest D.R., Krane J.F., et al (1999). Subclassifying atypical squamous cells in Thin-Prep cervical cytology correlates with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA. Am J Clin Pathol, 112, 384-90.
7. Doyle B., O'Farrell C., Mahoney E., et al (2006). Liquid-based cytology improves productivity in cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology, 17, 60-4.
8. Lerma E., Quintana M.J., Quilez M., et al (2007). Effectiveness of liquid-based cytology and papanicolaou tests in a low risk population. Acta Cytol, 51, 399-406.
9. Levi A.W., Kelly D.P., Rosenthal D.L. & Ronnett B.M. (2003). Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in liquid-based cytologic specimens: results of reflex human papillomavirus testing and histologic follow-up in routine practice with comparison of interpretive and probabilistic reporting methods. Cancer, 99, 191-7.
10. Limaye A., Connor A.J., Huang X. & Luff R. (2003). Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 127, 200-4.
11. Neville A.M. & Quinn M.A. (2005). An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 45, 289-94.
12. Renshaw A.A., Young N.A., Birdsong G.G., et al (2004). Comparison of performance of conventional and ThinPrep gynecologic preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 128, 17-22.
13. Rosenthal D.L., Geddes S., Trimble C.L., Carson K.A. & Alli P.M. (2006). The PapSpin: a reasonable alternative to other, more expensive liquid-based papanicolaou tests. Cancer, 108, 137-43.
14. Stoler M.H. & Schiffman M. (2001). Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. Jama, 285, 1500-5.
15. Tench W. (2000). Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med, 45, 912-6.
16. Vassilakos P., Schwartz D., de Marval F., et al (2000). Biopsy-based comparison of liquid-based, thin-layer preparations to conventional Pap smears. J Reprod Med, 45, 11-6.
17. Williams A.R. (2006). Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-month periods. Cytopathology, 17, 82-5.