High-risk human papillomavirus DNA test results are useful for disease risk stratification in women with unsatisfactory liquid-based cytology pap test results

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 79-84

  Zhao, Chengquan ^a   Austin, R Marshall ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

HPV; HPV DNA test; ThinPrep test; Unsatisfactory pap test

Indexed keywords

VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RISK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DNA DETERMINATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HOSPITAL LABORATORY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; RISK ASSESSMENT; SATISFACTION; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VIRUS EXAMINATION; WART VIRUS; AGED; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY; VIRUS INFECTION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; DNA, VIRAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67650723466     PISSN: 10892591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31818474fd     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287:2114-2119
2. Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, Buck HW, Cox JT, Darragh TM, et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:714-718 (Pubitemid 34784801)
3. Davey DD, Cox JT, Austin RM, Birdsong G, Colgan TJ, Howell LP, et al. Cervical cytology specimen adequacy: patient management guidelines and optimizing specimen collection. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008;12:71-81.
4. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag Publishers; 2004.
5. Austin RM. Managing risk in gynecologic cytology: reactive and unsatisfactory smears. Cancer 1997;81:137-138
6. Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg KD, Holund B, Hansen MK. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytol 1991; 35:47-50.
7. Sherman ME, Kelly D. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failures or rapid progression? Mod Pathol 1992;5:337-342
8. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski SZ. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer 1997;81:139-143
9. Nyga°rd JF, Sauer T, Nyga°rd M, Skare GB, Thoresen SØ. CIN 2/3 and cervical cancer in an organised screening programme after an unsatisfactory or a normal Pap smear: a seven-year prospective study of the Norwegian population-based screening programme. J Med Screen 2004;11:70-76
10. Hock YL, Ramaiah S,Wall ES, Harris AM, Marston L, Marshall J, et al. Outcome of women with inadequate cervical smears followed up for five years. J Clin Pathol 2003;56:592-595 (Pubitemid 36976356)
11. Bofin AM, Nygård JF, Skare GB, Dybdahl BM, Westerhagen U, Sauer T. Papanicolaou smear history in women with low-grade cytology before cervical cancer diagnosis. Cancer 2007:111;210-216
12. 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
13. Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Acta Cytol 2006;50:309-311 (Pubitemid 43837043)
14. Zhao C, Elishaev E, Yuan KH, Yu J, Austin RM. Very low human papillomavirus DNA prevalence in mature women with negative computer-imaged liquid-based Pap tests. Cancer 2007:111:292-297
15. Zhao C, Austin RM. Human papillomavirus DNA detection in ThinPrep Pap test vials is independent of cytologic sampling of the transformation zone. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 10:231-235 (Pubitemid 47575717)
16. Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, Sherman ME, Glass AG, Rush BB, 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
17. Lorincz AT. Hybrid Capture method for detection of human papillomavirus DNA in clinical specimens: a tool for clinical management of equivocal Pap smears and for population screening. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1996;22:629-636 (Pubitemid 27042099)
18. Haack LA, O'Brien D, Selvaggi SM. Protocol for the processing of bloody cervical specimens: glacial acetic acid and the ThinPrep Pap Test. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:210-213
19. 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
20. Agoff SN, Dean T, Nixon BK, Ingalls-Severn K, Rinker L, Grieco VS. The efficacy of reprocessing unsatisfactory cervicovaginal ThinPrep specimens with and without glacial acetic acid: effect on Hybrid Capture II human papillomavirus testing and clinical follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:727-732 (Pubitemid 37046317)
21. Islam S, West AM, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R. Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep Papanicolaou test specimens increases sample adequacy and detection of significant cervicovaginal lesions. Cancer 2004;102:67-73. (Pubitemid 38489962)
22. Eltoum IA, Chhieng DC, Crowe DR, Roberson JR, Jin G, Broker TR. Significance and possible causes of falsenegative results of reflex human papillomavirus testing. Cancer 2007;111:54-59 (Pubitemid 46982692)
23. Bolick DR, Bolick RE, Staley BE, Lin KK. Effects of specimen cellularity in the detection rate of HPV. Acta Cytol 2003;45:844A.
24. Bishop JW. Cellularity of liquid-based, thin-layer cervical cytology slides. Acta Cytol 2002;46:633-636 (Pubitemid 34787419)
25. Cibas ES, Hong X, Crum CP, Feldman S. Age-specific detection of high risk HPV DNA in cytologically normal, computer-imaged ThinPrep Pap samples. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:702-706 (Pubitemid 46251419)
26. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increase diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;10:215-219 (Pubitemid 24061451)
27. Grohs HK, Zahnheiser DH, Geyer JW. Standardization of Specimen Preparation Through Mono/Thinlayer Technology. in Automated Cervical Cancer Sampling. In: Grohs HK, Husain OAN, eds. New York: Igaku-Shouin; 1994:176-185
28. Gupta S, Halder K, Khan VA, Sodhani P. Cell block as an adjunct to conventional Papanicolaou smear for diagnosis of cervical cancer in resource limited settings. Cytopathology 2007;18:309-315 (Pubitemid 47476151)
29. Smith HO, Benwick M, Qualls CF, Verschraegen CF, Wiggins C. 30 Year Trends in Cervical Cancer Incidence Rates: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Population-Based Study. Abstract 196. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists' 2007 Meeting. March 4-7; San Diego, CA; 2007.
30. Linder J, Keene J, Sheets E. Cervical cancer reduction through higher sensitivity Pap testing: observed vs. calculated effects. Cancer 2007;111:369.
31. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquidbased cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and specimen adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308-317 (Pubitemid 32769428)
32. Ablufia O, Pezzullo JC, Shere DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:137-144
33. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Kilinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167-177
34. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquidbased versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122-132 (Pubitemid 43077128)
35. Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31.
36. Richard K, Dziura B, Hornish A. Cell block preparation as a diagnostic technique complementary to fluid-based monolayer cervicovaginal specimens. Acta Cytol 1999;43:69-73. (Pubitemid 29071879)
37. Diaz-Rosario L, Kabawat SE. Cell block preparation by inverted filter sedimentation is useful in the differential diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in ThinPrep specimens. Cancer 2000;90:265-272 (Pubitemid 30782984)
38. Keyhani-Rofagha S, Vesey-Shecket M. Diagnostic value, feasibility, and validity of preparing cell blocks from fluid-based gynecologic cytology specimens. Cancer 2002; 96:204-209 (Pubitemid 34920136)
39. Kabbani W, Raisanen J, Thomas S, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R. Cell block findings from residual PreservCyt samples in unsatisfactory ThinPrep Paps: no additional benefit. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:238-243
40. Yeoh GP, Chan KW. Cell block preparation on residual ThinPrep sample. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:427-431