Comparison between Siriraj liquid-based and conventional cytology for detection of abnormal cervicovaginal smears: A split-sample study

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 575-580

  Laiwejpithaya, Somsak ^a   Rattanachaiyanont, Manee ^a   Benjapibal, Mongkol ^a   Khuakoonratt, Nathaya ^a   Boriboonhirunsarn, Dittakran ^a   Laiwejpithaya, Sujera ^a   Sangkarat, Suthi ^a   Wongtiraporn, Weerasak ^a  

^a MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Correlation; Liquid based cytology; Pap smear; Split sample study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COLPOSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RISK; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THAILAND; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COLPOSCOPY; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; CYTODIAGNOSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PROBABILITY; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THAILAND; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 66149095522     PISSN: 15137368     EISSN: 2476762X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Austin RM, Ramzy I (1998). Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations: A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol, 42, 178-84.
2. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ (1998). Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol, 42, 209-13.
3. Bales CE (2006). Laboratory techniques. In 'Koss' diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases', Eds Koss LG and Melamed MR. Lippincott William & Wilkins, Philadelphia pp 569-622.
4. Corkill M, Knapp D, Hutchinson ML (1998). Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula collection procedure. J Lower Genital Tract Dis, 2, 12-6.
5. Dupree WB, Suprun HZ, Beckwith DG, Shane JJ, Lucente V (1998). The promise and risk of a new technology: The Lehigh Valley Hospital's experience with liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer, 84, 202-7.
6. Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE (1999). Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 123, 817-21.
7. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P (1995). Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol, 141, 680-9.
8. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM (2004). Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. In: GLOBOCAN 2002, Version 2.0. IARC Cancer Base No. 5. Lyon: IARC Press;, http://www.dep.iarc.fr/globocan/globocan.htm.
9. Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D (2004). Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer, 102, 269-79.
10. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR (1985). False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol, 29, 1043-6.
11. Guo M, Hu L, Martin L, et al (2005). Accuracy of liquid-based Pap tests: comparison of concurrent liquid-based tests and cervical biopsies on 782 women with previously abnormal Pap smears. Acta Cytol, 49, 132-8.
12. Limaye A, Connor JA, Huang X, Luff R (2003). Comparison analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 127, 200-4.
13. Mount S, Harmon M, Eltabbakh G, Uyar D, Leiman G (2004). False positive diagnosis in conventional and liquid-based cervical specimens. Acta Cytol, 78, 363-71.
14. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Hakama M (1995). The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol, 85, 1017-21.
15. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al (2000). Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med, 132, 810-9.
16. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL (1998). Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice: A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol, 42, 203-8.
17. Park IA, Lee SN, Chae SW, et al (2001). Comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep Pap tests and conventional Papanicolaou smears on the basis of the histologic diagnosis: a clinical study of women with cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol, 45, 525-31.
18. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CR (1997). Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust, 167, 466-9.
19. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al (2002). The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA, 287, 2114-9.
20. Vassilakos P, Carrel S, Petignet P, Boulvain M, Campana A (2002). Use of automated primary screening on liquid-based, thin-layer preparations. Acta Cytol, 46, 291-5.