Is a liquid-based cytology more sensitive than a conventional pap smear?

Cytopathology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 254-263

  Sigurdsson, K ^a  

^a ICELANDIC CANCER SOCIETY   (Iceland)

Author keywords

Attendance; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical screening; High grade cytology; Liquid based cytology; Low grade cytology; Older women; Pap smears; Positive predictive values; Squamous intraepithelial lesion; Younger women

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXCISION; FEMALE; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT CYTOLOGY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LARGE LOOP EXCISION OF THE TRANSFORMATION ZONE; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

ATTENDANCE; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVICAL SCREENING; HIGH-GRADE CYTOLOGY; LIQUID-BASED CYTOLOGY; LOW-GRADE CYTOLOGY; OLDER WOMEN; PAP SMEARS; POSITIVE PREDICTIVE VALUES; SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; YOUNGER WOMEN;

ADULT; COLPOSCOPY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; ICELAND; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PREGNANCY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84880684193     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cyt.12037     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sigurdsson K. Cervical cancer: cytological cervical screening in Iceland and implications of HPV testing - a review paper. Cytopathology 2010;21:213-22.
2. Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H. Is it rational to start population-based cervical cancer screening at or soon after age 20? Analysis of time trends in preinvasive and invasive disease. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:769-74.
3. Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H. Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in Iceland, 1964-2002: a study on trends in incidence and mortality and the effect of risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:343-9.
4. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG et al. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynaecol 1997;90:278-84.
5. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
6. Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. In: Sommers SC. Pathol Annu 1973;8:301-28.
7. 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.
8. Sigurdsson K. Quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: the Icelandic experience 1964-1993. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:728-34.
9. Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H. Longitudinal trends in cervical cytological lesions and the effect of risk factors: a 30-year overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:350-8.
10. Sigurdsson K, Sigvaldason H. Longitudinal trends in cervical histological lesions (CIN 2-3+): a 25-year overview. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006;85:359-65.
11. Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J et al. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1-78.
12. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJJM, Grefte JMM et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:1757-64.
13. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P et al. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167-77.
14. Arbyn A, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C et al. Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis. BMJ 2008;337:a1284.
15. Cox JT. History of the use of HPV testing in cervical screening and in the management of abnormal cervical screening results. J Clin Virol 2009;45(Suppl 1):S3-12.
16. Cuzick J, Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R et al. Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries. Vaccine 2008;26(Suppl 10):K29-41.
17. Albrow R, Kitchener H, Gupta N, Desai M. Cervical screening in England: the past, present and future. Cancer Cytopathol 2012;120:87-96.
18. Boone JD, Erikson BK, Huh WK. New insights into cervical cancer screening. J Gynecol Oncol 2012;23:282-7.
19. Palmer TJ, Nicoll SM, McKean ME et al. Prospective parallel randomized trial of the MultiCyte™ ThinPrep(®) imaging system: the Scottish experience. Cytopathology doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2012.00982.x. [Epub ahead of print].
20. van Rosmalen J, de Kok IM, van Ballegooijen M. Cost-effectiveness of cervical screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing. BJOG 2012;119:699-709.
21. de Bekker-Grob EW, de Kok IM, Bulten J et al. Liquid-based cervical cytology using Thin Prep technology: weighing the pros and cons in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Causes Control 2012;23:1323-31.
22. Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P et al. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to UK. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-207.