Application of a new liquid-based procedure (TACAS) for the screening of cervical cancer: A preliminary study

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 74-79

  Kuramoto, Hiroyuki ^a   Iwami, Yoshiko ^b   Sugimoto, Naoko ^b   Kato, Chizuyo ^b   Sugahara, Takashi ^b   Iida, Manichi ^b  

^a Department of Cancer Detection for Female   (Japan)

^b Kanagawa Health Service Association   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Liquid based cytology; Liquid based procedure; Screening; Thinlayer Advanced Cytology Assay System

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER CELL; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SCREENING; CELL NUCLEUS; CELL SIZE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COTTON; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; GRANULOCYTE; HEALTH SERVICE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INFLAMMATION; LIQUID CULTURE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS; SQUAMOUS CELL; THIN LAYER ADVANCED CYTOLOGY ASSAY SYSTEM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERUS BLEEDING;

GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM;

EID: 84855807676     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000332971     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Namce KV: Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital: a ten-year experience. Diag Cytopathol 2007; 35: 148-153.
2. Akamatsu S, Himeji Y, Ikuta N, et al: Satisfac-toriness and disease detection in the screen-ing specimens of cervical cancer - compari-son between liquid-based and conventional methods. Jpn J Clin Cytol 2008; 47:420-424.
3. β Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101: 215-219. (Pubitemid 24061451)
4. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, et al: Com-parison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gyne-col 1997; 90: 278-284. (Pubitemid 27318847)
5. Hatch KD, Sheets E, Kennedy A, et al: Mul-ticenter direct-to-vial evaluation of a liquid-based Pap test. J Lower Gen Tract Dis 2004; 8:308-312. (Pubitemid 39332207)
6. Park J, Jung EH, Kim C, et al: Direct-to-vial comparison of a new liquid-based cytology system, liquid-PREP versus the conventional Pap smear. Diag Cytopathol 2007; 35: 488-492. (Pubitemid 47267510)
7. Solomon D, Nayar R: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology, ed 2. New York, Springer, 2004.
8. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al: Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 87: 48-55. (Pubitemid 29204899)
9. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al: Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical le-sions: a study of 7,932 women. Br J Cancer 2001; 84:1616-1623 (Pubitemid 32612492)
10. American College of Obstetricians and Gy-necologists: ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clini-cal Management Guidelines for Obstetri-cian-Gynecologists. Number 61, April 2005. Human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:905-918.
11. Davey E, Barrat A, Irwig L, et al: Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systemic review. Lancet 2006; 367:122-132. (Pubitemid 43077128)
12. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al: Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and hu-man papillomavirus DNA testing for cervi-cal cancer screening. BMJ 2003; 326:733-737.
13. Ferenczy A, Robitail le J, Franco E, et al: Con-ventional cervical cytology vs. ThinPrep smears. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:1136-1142.
14. Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A, et al: Ac-curacy of thin-layer cytology in patients un-dergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 519-524. (Pubitemid 32674887)
15. Sherman ME, Mendoza M, Lee KR, et al: Performance of liquid-based, thin-layer cer-vical cytology: correlation with reference di-agnoses and human papillomavirus testing. Mod Pathol 1998; 11:837-843. (Pubitemid 28440880)
16. Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer B, et al: Effec-tiveness of thin-layer preparation vs. con-ventional Pap smear in a blinded, split-sam-ple study: extended cytologic evaluation. J Reprod Med 2001; 46: 880-886. (Pubitemid 33032047)
17. Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, et al: Liquid-based cytology versus conven-tional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening system program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer (Cancer Cytopa-thol) 2007; 111:285-291.
18. Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B: Im-provement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquid-based cy-tology. Diagn Cytopathol 2006; 34,:780-785. (Pubitemid 44663257)
19. Davey E, dAssuncao J, Irwig L, et al: Accu-racy of reading liquid-based cytology slides using the ThinPrep imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335:31-35. (Pubitemid 47066904)
20. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, et al: Accuracy of liquid-based versus conventional cytolo-gy: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomized con-trolled trial. BMJ 2007; 335: 1-2.
21. Doyle B, O'Farrell C, Mahoney E, et al: Liq-uid-based cytology improves productivity in cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 60-64.
22. Williams AR: Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-months periods. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 82-85.
23. Ronco G, Segnan N, Giorge-Rossi P, et al: Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer ran-domized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98:765-774. (Pubitemid 43983300)
24. Kirschner B, Simonsen K, Junge J: Compari-son of conventional Papanicolaou smear and SurePath liquid-based cytology in the Co-penhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer. Cytopathology 2006; 17: 187-194. (Pubitemid 44124657)
25. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, et al: Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systemic review and meta-analy-sis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 167-177
26. McGoogan E, Reith A: Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screen-ing? Overview and evaluation of systems available. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:107-119. (Pubitemid 26049310)
27. Dowie R, Stoykova B, Crawford D, et al: Liq-uid-based cytology can improve efficiency of cervical smear readers: evidence from tim-ing surveys in two NHS cytology laborato-ries. Cytopathology 2006; 17:65-72.