Practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology, 2006

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 134, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 331-335

  Eversole, Galen M ^a   Moriarty, Ann T ^b   Schwartz, Mary R ^c   Clayton, Amy C ^d   Souers, Rhona ^e   Fatheree, Lisa A ^e   Chmara, Beth A ^e   Tench, William D ^f   Henry, Michael R ^d   Wilbur, David C ^g  

^a QUEST DIAGNOSTICS NICHOLS INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b AmeriPath Indiana ^*  (United States)

^c HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e Molecular Pathology Division   (United States)

^f Palomar Medical Center   (United States)

^g MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PATHOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SPECIMEN HANDLING; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINA; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 77749345663     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;11(4):390-396.
2. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Naryshkin S, Robb JA, Cohen T, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;120(5):440-444.
3. 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(9):903-907.
4. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, Stastny J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124(2):203-211.
5. 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 program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(11):1224-1229.
6. Commission on Laboratory Accreditation. Laboratory accreditation program: Cytopathology checklist. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 2007.
7. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114-2119.
8. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(4):293-299. (Pubitemid 32219816)
9. Wright TC, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. American Journal of Obstet and Gynecol. 2007; 197(4):346-358.
10. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames: The Iowa State University Press; 1989.
11. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
12. Loura AP, Roberson J, Eltoum I, Chhieng DC. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a follow-up study of conventional and liquid-based preparations in a high-risk population. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120(3):392-397.
13. Renshaw AA, Mody DR, Lozano LR, et al. Detection of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix in Papanicolaou tests: comparison of diagnostic accuracy with other high-grade lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(2):153-157.
14. Juskevicius R, Zou K1-l, Cibas ED. An analysis of factors that influence the ASCUS/SIL ratio of pathologists. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:331-335.
15. Ko V, Nanji S, Tambouret RH, Wilbur DC. Testing for HPV as an objective measure for quality assurance in gynecologic cytology. Cancer. 2007;111(2):67-73.
16. Fidda N, Miron J, Rodgers WH, Rader A. Impact of the new Bethesda System 2001 on specimen adequacy of conventional cervicovaginal smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30(4):235-239.
17. Moriarty AT, Schwartz MR, Eversole GM, et al. Human papillomavirus testing and reporting rates: practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(8):1290-1294.
18. Tworek JA, Raab S, Jones BA, Clary KM. Q-Probes 2005: HPV Testing (QP053). Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 2005.