Unsatisfactory SurePath liquid-based papanicolaou tests

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 117, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 15-26

  Alsharif, Mariam ^a   McKeon, Dan M ^b   Gulbahce, H Evin ^a   Savik, Kay ^c   Pambuccian, Stefan E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

2001 Bethesda System; Follow up; Liquid based cervicovaginal cytology; Provider; Squamous cellularity; Unsatisfactory

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 65349106606     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20009     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bray F, Loos AH, McCarron P, et al. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:677-686.
2. Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2007;45(2-3):93-106.
3. [No authors listed] The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute workshop in Bethesda, MD, December 12-13, 1988. Diagn Cytopathol 1989;5:331-334.
4. Kurman RJ, Malkasian GD Jr, Sedlis A, Solomon D. From Papanicolaou to Bethesda: the rationale for a new cervical cytologic classification. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77:779-782.
5. Bottles K, Reiter RC, Steiner AL, Zaleski S, Bedrossian CW, Johnson SR. Problems encountered with the Bethesda System: the University of Iowa experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(3 pt 1):410-414.
6. Kline TS, Solomon D. Guidelines for specimen adequacy - a plea for workable definitions. Diagn Cytopathol. 1991;7:1-2.
7. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
8. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Rosenstock W, Kline TS. Terminology and specimen adequacy in cervicovaginal cytology. The College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116:903-907.
9. Nielsen ML, Davey DD, Kline TS. Specimen adequacy evaluation in gynecologic cytopathology: current laboratory practice in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program and tentative guidelines for future practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9:394-403.
10. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
11. Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2002;6:195-199.
12. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.
13. Davey DD, Cox JT, Austin RM, et al. Cervical cytology specimen adequacy: patient management guidelines and optimizing specimen collection. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008;12:71-81.
14. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski S. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1997;81:139-143.
15. Adams AL, Gidley J, Roberson J, Wang W, Eltoum I, Chhieng DC. Clinical significance of unsatisfactory conventional Pap smears owing to inadequate squamous cellularity defined by the Bethesda 2001 criterion. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123:738-743.
16. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare National Coverage Determinations (NCD) Manual. CMS Publication 100-03. Section 190.2 - Diagnostic Pap Smears. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; Rev. 48, 2006.
17. Henry JA, Wadehra V. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytologic abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:529-535.
18. McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I, et al. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic cytology towards the 21st Century: an international expert conference and tutorial. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:25-32.
19. Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:605-610.
20. Bolick DR. A critical look at Pap test adequacy: are our criteria satisfactory? [abstract]. Cytopathology. 2006;17(suppl 1):1.
21. Bishop JW. Cellularity of liquid-based, thin-layer cervical cytology slides. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:633-636.
22. Baandrup U, Bishop JW, Bonfiglio TA, et al. Sampling, sampling errors and specimen preparation. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:944-948.
23. Evered A. Response to 'Proposed quantitative criteria in cervical cytology to assist the diagnosis and grading of squamous intra-epithelial lesions, as the British Society for Clinical definitions require amendment' [letter]. Cytopathology. 2006;17:100; author reply 101.
24. Vooijs GP, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1986;30:251-257.
25. Celasun B. Presence of endocervical cells and number of slides in cervicovaginal smears: differences in performance between gynecologists. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:730-734.
26. Curtis P, Mintzer M, Morrell D, Resnick JC, Hendrix S, Qaqish BF. Characteristics and quality of Papanicolaou smears obtained by primary care clinicians using a single commercial laboratory. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:407-413.
27. Bar-Am A, Niv J, Segal A. Taking a satisfactory cervical cytologic smear. Is it really an easy procedure? Acta Cytol. 1997;41:1781-1784.
28. Kane BR, Berger MS, Lisney M. Pap smear adequacy: the role of clinician experience. Fam Med. 1997;29:315-317.
29. Lee D, Patrissi GA, Kaminski PF. Accuracy of Papanicolaou smears. Art or science? J Reprod Med. 1988;33:795-798.
30. Fox R, Nix AB, Fielder H. A comparison of variability in Papanicolaou and liquid-based cytology inadequacy rates using Shewhart control charts. Cytopathology. 2006;17:175-181.
31. Raab SS, Andrew-Jaja C, Grzybicki DM, et al. Dissemination of Lean methods to improve Pap testing quality and patient safety. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2008;12:103-110.
32. Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Condel JL, et al. Effect of Lean method implementation in the histopathology section of an anatomic pathology laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2008:61: 1193-1199.
33. Fiscella K, Franks P. The adequacy of Papanicolaou smears as performed by family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:294-298.
34. Cole ME, Milam MR, Scott TA, Jones HW 3rd. Inadequate screening in patients evaluated by nongynecologists for cervical cancer: a case control analysis [serial online]. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:e48-e50.
35. Sweeney BJ, Haq Z, Happel JF, Weinstein B, Schneider D. Comparison of the effectiveness of 2 liquid-based Papanicolaou systems in the handling of adverse limiting factors, such as excessive blood. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2006;108:27-31.
36. Holton T, Smith D, Terry M, Madgwick A, Levine T. The effect of lubricant contamination on ThinPrep (Cytyc) cervical cytology liquid-based preparations. Cytopathology. 2008;19:236-243.
37. Maguire A, Turner L, Magee D, Gibbons D. Decrease in numbers of glandular cell groups in post-LLETZ liquid-based cytology preparations. Cytopathology. 2008;19:44-47.
38. Jacobson DL, Peralta L, Graham NM, Zenilman J. Histologic development of cervical ectopy: relationship to reproductive hormones. Sex Transm Dis. 2000;27:252-258.
39. Felix JC. The science behind the effectiveness of in vivo screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3 suppl):S8-S12.
40. Felix JC, Lonky NM, Tamura K, et al. Aberrant expression of E-cadherin in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia correlates with a false-negative Papanicolaou smear. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1308-1314.
41. Politi EN, Lazaris AC, Kehriotis M, Papathomas TG, Nikolakopoulou E, Koutselini H. Altered expression of adhesion molecules in inflammatory cervical smears. Cytopathology. 2008;19:172-178.
42. Boon ME, Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, van Leeuwen AW, van Haaften-Day C. Clinical and diagnostic significance of blood in cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;28:181-185.
43. Bentz JS, Rowe LR, Gopez EV, Marshall CJ. The unsatisfactory ThinPrep Pap test: missed opportunity for disease detection? Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:457-463.
44. Islam S, West AM, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R. Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep Papanicolaou test specimens increases sample adequacy and detection of significant cervicovaginal lesions. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2004;102:67-73.
45. Hodgson W, Kaplan KJ, Rodriguez M, McHale MT, Rose GS, Elkas JC. The impact of converting to liquid-based cervical cytology in a military population. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99:422-426.
46. Nance KV. Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital: a ten year experience. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:148-153.
47. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128: 1224-1229.
48. Colgan TJ, McLachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seidenfeld AM, Mai VM. Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the Ontario screening program. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2004;102:362-367.
49. Stark A. Rejected and unsatisfactory specimens: a comparative study of liquid-based (SurePath) preparations and conventional Pap smears for cervicovaginal screening. Lab Med. 2007;38:729-733.
50. Nygard JF, Sauer T, Nygard M, Skare GB, Thoresen SO. CIN 2/3 and cervical cancer in an organised screening programme after an unsatisfactory or a normal Pap smear: a 7-year prospective study of the Norwegian population-based screening programme. J Med Screen. 2004;11:70-76.