Large performance variation does not affect outcome in the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme

Cytopathology

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 172-180

  Lonnberg S ^a   Nieminen, P ^b   Kotaniemi Talonen, L ^a   Kujari, H ^c   Melkko, J ^d   Granroth, G ^e   Vornanen, M ^f   Pietilainen T ^g   Arola, J ^h   Tarkkanen, J ⁱ   Luostarinen, T ^a   Anttila, A ^a  

^a FINNISH CANCER REGISTRY   (Finland)

^b HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^c Lounais Suomen Patologian Laboratorio Oy   (Finland)

^d Suomen Syöpäyhdistyksen Sytologian Laboratorio   (Finland)

^e Syöpäjärjestöjen Sytologian Laboratorio   (Finland)

^f Kotkan Syöpäpoliklinikka   (Finland)

^g Puijon Solu Ja Kudoslaboratorio Oy   (Finland)

^h Syöpäjärjestöjen Poliklinikka   (Finland)

ⁱ Kätilöopiston Sairaalan Patologian Laboratorio   (Finland)

Author keywords

Cytology; False negative tests; Mass screening; Quality control; Sensitivity and specificity; Uterine cervical neoplasms

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MASS SCREENING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ALPHAPAPILLOMAVIRUS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FINLAND; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; LABORATORY PROFICIENCY TESTING; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84861203182     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00849.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Anttila A, Ronco G, Lynge E et al. Epidemiological guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. In: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening, 2nd edn. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J et al. (eds). Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities; 2008: 11-52.
2. Lönnberg S, Anttila A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L et al. Low proportion of false-negative smears in the Finnish program for cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:381-7.
3. Stoler MH, Schiffmann M, Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-5.
4. O'Sullivan JP. Observer variation in gynaecological cytopathology. Cytopathology 1998;9:6-14.
5. Renshaw AA, Lee KR, Granter SR. Use of statistical analysis of cytologic interpretation to determine the causes of interobserver disagreement and in quality improvement. Cancer 1997;81:212-9.
6. Monto K, Nieminen P. The annual number of pap smears and the reporting system used in Finland. Suomen Lääkärilehti 2005;18-19:2093-7. Finnish.
7. Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Anttila A, Malila N et al. Screening with a primary human papillomavirus test does not increase detection of cervical cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia 3. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:565-71.
8. Leinonen M, Nieminen P, Kotaniemi-Talonen L et al. Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1612-23.
9. Anttila A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Leinonen M et al. Rate of cervical cancer, severe intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma in situ in primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage: randomised study within organised screening programme. BMJ 2010;340:c1804.
10. Anttila A, Hakama M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Nieminen P. Alternative technologies in cervical cancer screening: a randomised evaluation trial. BMC Public Health 2006; 6:252.
11. Finnish Cancer Registry [Internet]. Cancer Statistics at [updated 11.8.2010].
12. Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Nieminen P, Hakama M et al. Significant variation in performance does not reflect the effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:169-74.
13. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9.
14. Ronco G, van Ballegooijen M, Becker N et al. Process performance of cervical screening programmes in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2659-70.
15. Ronco G, Montanari G, Confortini M et al. Effect of circulation and discussion of cervical smears on agreement between laboratories. Cytopathology 2003;14:115-20.
16. Blanks RG. The development of the referral outcome diagram and an analysis of laboratory cancer detection rates in the English NHS cervical screening programme - is there an optimum level of detection of CIN 1 and CIN 2 lesions? Cytopathology 2008;19:244-53.
17. Blanks RG. Using a graph of the abnormal predictive value versus the positive predictive value for the determination of outlier laboratories in the National Health Service cervical screening programme. Cytopathology 2010; 21:379-88.
18. van der Aa MA, Siesling S, Louwman MW et al. Geographical relationships between sociodemographic factors and incidence of cervical cancer in the Netherlands 1989-2003. Eur J Cancer Prev 2008;17:453-9.
19. Leinonen M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Anttila A et al. Prevalence of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection in an organised screening population in Finland. Int J Cancer 2008;123:1344-9.
20. De Vuyst H, Clifford G, Li N, Franceschi S. HPV infection in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:2632-9.