Causes and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 136, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 76-83

  Siebers, Albertus G ^a   Klinkhamer, Paul J J M ^b   Vedder, Judith E M ^a   Arbyn, Marc ^c   Bulten, Johan ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

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

^c SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CELL COUNT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; CELL COUNT; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84856058557     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0113-OA     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, et al. Accuracy of liquid based vs conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;335(7609):28-34.
2. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJJM, Grefte JMM, et al. Comparison of liquidbased cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(16):1757-1764.
3. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):167-177.
4. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer P, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LFAG, Bulten J. Cytological detection of cervical abnormalities with the ThinPrepH liquid based versus conventional cytology: population based cluster randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1327-1334.
5. Harrison WN, Teale AMJ, Jones SP, Mohammed MA. The impact of the introduction of liquid based cytology on the variation in the proportion of inadequate samples between GP practices. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:191-195.
6. The 1991 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnosis: report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. JAMA. 1992;267(16):1892.
7. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(2):278-284. (Pubitemid 27318847)
8. Duggan MA, Khalil M, Brasher PMA, Nation JG. Comparative study of the ThinPrep Pap test and conventional cytology results in a Canadian cohort. Cytopathology. 2006;17(2):73-81.
9. Selvaggi SM, Guidos BJ. Specimen adequacy and the ThinPrep Pap Test: the endocervical component. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23(1):23-26. (Pubitemid 30418511)
10. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the ThinPrep Pap Test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20(2):70-73. (Pubitemid 29068204)
11. Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, Brown JL, Becker LA, Grant WD. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test?: a systematic review. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(12):1040-1046. (Pubitemid 33131155)
12. Arbyn M, Herbert A, Schenck U, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology. Cytopathology. 2007;18(13):133-139. (Pubitemid 46934510)
13. 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(4):388-393. (Pubitemid 38446257)
14. The revised Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. Acta Cytol. 1992;36(3):273-276.
15. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114-2119. (Pubitemid 34437346)
16. Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, et al. Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol. 2007; 29(1):19-24. (Pubitemid 46535194)
17. Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, et al. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomized clinical trials. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1067-1073.
18. CorkillM, Knapp D, Martin J, Hutchinson ML. Specimen adequacy of Thin Prep sample preparations in a direct-to-vial study. Acta Cytol. 1997;41(1):39-44. (Pubitemid 27063385)
19. Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(12):1912-1916.
20. Alsharif M, McKeon DM, Gulbahce HE, Savik K, Pambuccian SE. Unsatisfactory Sure Path liquid-based Papanicolaou tests. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;117(1):15-26.
21. 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(5):738-743. (Pubitemid 40586491)
22. Desai M, Herbert A. How should adequacy of liquid-based cytology be defined? Cytopathology. 2006;17(4):165-167. (Pubitemid 44124653)
23. Kruger J, Dunton CJ, Sewell C, Cardonick E. Randomized pilot study comparing rates of endocervical cell recovery between conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology in a pregnant population. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2003; 7(2):101-103. (Pubitemid 36469356)
24. Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-Van Marle E, Hanselaar AG, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115 (6):851-855. (Pubitemid 32476711)
25. Siebers AG, De Leeuw H, Verbeek AL, Hanselaar AG. Prevalence of squamous abnormalities in women with a recent smear without endocervical cells is lower as compared to women with smears with endocervical cells. Cytopathology. 2003;14(2):58-65. (Pubitemid 36577958)