Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: Data from two randomised clinical trials

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 117, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1067-1073

  Castle, P E ^a   Bulten, J ^b   Confortini, M ^c   Klinkhamer, P ^d   Pellegrini, A ^e   Siebers, Ag ^b   Ronco, G ^f   Arbyn, M ^g  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Institute for Study and Cancer Prevention ISPO   (Italy)

^d Stichting Laboratoria voor Pathologie en Medische Microbiologie   (Netherlands)

^e MOLINETTE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^f Unit of Cancer Epidemiology   (Italy)

^g SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer screening; conventional cytology; liquid based cytology; Pap smear; specimen adequacy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL CYTOLOGY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; ITALY; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NETHERLANDS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POPULATION BASED CASE CONTROL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; WART VIRUS; AGE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 77954394372     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02650.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer 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.
2. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla PP, Naldoni C, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007 335 : 28.
3. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009 302 : 1757 1764.
4. Arbyn M, Abarca M. Liquid based cytology: An effective Alternative for the Conventional Pap Smear to Detect Cervical Cancer Precursors? Systematic review and meta-analysis. [IPH/EPI - Reports Nr. 2003-010]
5. Alsharif M, McKeon DM, Gulbahce HE, Savik K, Pambuccian SE. Unsatisfactory SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou tests: causes and significance. Cancer Cytopathol 2009 117 : 15 26.
6. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008 112 : 1327 1334.
7. Arbyn M, Herbert A, Schenck U, Nieminen P, Jordan J, McGoogan E, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology. Cytopathology 2007 18 : 133 139. (Pubitemid 46934510)
8. Bulk S, van Kemenade FJ, Rozendaal L, Meijer CJ. The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996. J Clin Pathol 2004 57 : 388 393.
9. 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.
10. Ronco G, Brezzi S, Carozzi F, Dalla PP, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, et al. The New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. An overview of results during the first phase of recruitment. Gynecol Oncol 2007 107 (1 Suppl 1 S230 2.
11. 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.
12. Cochran W. The contribution of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954 10 : 101 129.
13. Ronco G, van BM, Becker N, Chil A, Fender M, Giubilato P, et al. Process performance of cervical screening programmes in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009 45 : 2659 2670.
14. 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.
15. Jordan J, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Schenck U, Baldauf J-J, Da Silva D, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 1. Cytopathology 2008 19 : 342 354.