Impact of technology on cytology outcome in cervical cancer screening of young and older women

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 134, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 2168-2179

  Rask, J ^a   Lynge, E ^a   Franzmann, M ^b   Hansen, B ^c   Hjortebjerg, A ^d   Rygaard, C ^b   Schledermann, D ^d   Rebolj, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b HVIDOVRE HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^d ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

age dependency; automation assisted reading; cervical cancer; liquid based cytology; screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRIC EQUIPMENT; HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SQUAMOUS CELL; TREND STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; YOUNG ADULT;

AGE DEPENDENCY; AUTOMATION-ASSISTED READING; CERVICAL CANCER; LIQUID-BASED CYTOLOGY; SCREENING;

ADULT; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84896699415     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28532     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ferris DG, Heidemann NL, Litaker MS, et al. The efficacy of liquid-based cervical cytology using direct-to-vial sample collection. J Fam Pract 2000; 49: 1005-11.
2. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, 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. Klug SJ, Neis KJ, Harlfinger W, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid-based cytology and computer assistance. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 2849-57.
4. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, et al. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 167-77.
5. Davey E, Barratt 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 systematic review. Lancet 2006; 367: 122-32.
6. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJJM, Arbyn M, et al. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1327-34.
7. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G, et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 56-64.
8. Anttila A, Pokhrel A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. Cervical cancer patterns with automation-assisted and conventional cytological screening: a randomized study. Int J Cancer 2011; 128: 1204-12.
9. Barken SS, Rebolj M, Lynge E, et al. Outcomes in cervical screening using various cytology technologies: what's age got to do with it? Eur J Cancer Prev 2013; 22: 367-73. Erratum (In press).
10. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Forebyggende undersøgelser mod livmoderhalskræft. København. [Preventive testing for cervical cancer. Guidelines Copenhagen.] 1986.
11. Sundhedsstyrelsen. Screening for livmoderhalskræft. [Cervical cancer screening-guidelines.] 2007.
12. Pedersen CB,. The Danish Civil Registration System. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39: 22-5.
13. Bjerregaard B, Larsen OB,. The Danish Pathology Register. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39: 72-4.
14. Gjerstorff ML,. The Danish Cancer Registry. Scand J Public Health 2011; 39: 42-5.
15. Danmarks Statistik. Statistikbanken. Folketal pr. 1. januar efter køn, område, alder og tid [StatBank Denmark. Population size on 1 January by sex, area, age and year]. Available at: http://www.statistikbanken. dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1280 [last accessed August 20, 2012 ].
16. Bosch FX, Burchell AN, Schiffman M, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of human papillomavirus infections and type-specific implications in cervical neoplasia. Vaccine 2008; 26 (Suppl 10): K1-K16.
17. Kjær SK, Breugelmans G, Munk C, et al. Population-based prevalence, type- and age-specific distribution of HPV in women before introduction of an HPV vaccination program in Denmark. Int J Cancer 2008; 123: 1864-70.
18. Flynn K, Rimm DL,. Diagnosis of "ASCUS" in women over age 50 is less likely to be associated with dysplasia. Diagn Cytopathol 2001; 24: 132-6.
19. Goksedef BPC, Akbayir O, Baran SY, et al. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women: a comparative retrospective analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 159: 418-21.
20. WHO. Cervix cancer screening. IARC handbook of cancer prevention, vol 10. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005. Available at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs- online/prev/handbook10/index.php [last accessed September 4, 2012].
21. Keating JT, Wang HH,. Significance of a diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance for Papanicolaou smears in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cancer Cytopathol 2001; 93: 100-5.
22. Johnston EI, Logani S,. Cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cancer Cytopathol 2007; 111: 160-5.
23. BD SurePath™. SurePath® Collection Product Insert-779-07084-00 Rev F. Available at: http://www.bd.com/tripath/downloads/surepath-ctgc/779- 07084-00-Rev-B-PI-SP.pdf [last accessed March 22, 2012 ].
24. Hologic, Inc. Thinprep Package Insert. Available at: http://www.thinprep. com/pdfs/thinprep-package-insert.pdf [last accessed March 22, 2012 ].
25. Alsharif M, McKeon DM, Gulbahce HE, et al. Unsatisfactory SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou tests. Cancer Cytopathol 2009; 117: 15-26.
26. Harrison WN, Teale AM, Jones SP, et al. 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.
27. 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 randomised clinical trials. BJOG 2010; 117: 1067-73.
28. Moss S, Gray A, Marteau T, et al. Evaluation of HPV/LBC. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/evaluation-hpv-2006feb.pdf [last accessed July 16, 2013 ].
29. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJJM, Grefte JMM, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors. JAMA 2009; 302: 1757-64.
30. Rogstad KE,. The psychological impact of abnormal cytology and colposcopy. BJOG 2002; 109: 364-8.
31. Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, et al. Loop electrosurgical excision of the cervix and subsequent risk for spontaneous preterm delivery: a population-based study of singleton deliveries during a 9-year period. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201: 33.e1-33.e6.
32. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 367: 489-98.
33. Simoens C, Goffin F, Simon P, et al. Adverse obstetrical outcomes after treatment of precancerous cervical lesions: a Belgian multicentre study. BJOG 2012; 119: 1247-55.
34. Heinonen A, Gissler M, Riska A, et al. Loop electrosurgical excision procedure and the risk for preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 1063-8.
35. Bevis KS, Biggio JR,. Cervical conization and the risk of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: 19-27.