The tahoe study: Bias in the interpretation of papanicolaou test results when human papillomavirus status is known

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 138, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1182-1185

  Moriarty, Ann T ^a   Nayar, Ritu ^c   Arnold, Terry ^b   Gearries, Lisa ^b   Renshaw, Andrew ^e   Thomas, Nicole ^d   Souers, Rhona ^d  

^a Esoteric Testing AmeriPath Indiana ^*  (United States)

^b Cytology   (United States)

^c NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d North Carolina   (United States)

^e Department of Pathology Baptist Memorial Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPLICATION; EPITHELIUM CELL; FEMALE; HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATHOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL BIAS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84907190274     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2012-0115-CP     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(1):10-29.
2. Wilbur DC. Gynecologic cytology: approach to the slide and normal morphology. In: Wilbur DC, Henry MR, eds. Gynecologic Cytopathology: Morphology Management and Molecular Methods. Northfield IL: College of American Pathologists; 2008.
3. Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al. Human papillomavirus DNAversus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(16):1579-1588.
4. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, et al; MAVARIC Trial Study Group. MAVARIC: a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(3):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-170.
5. Wright TC, Schiffman M. Adding a test for human papillomavirus DNA to cervical cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(6):489-490.
6. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodrigues AC, Wacholder S, Humanpapillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):890-907.
7. Paavonen J, Naud P, Salmerón J, et al; HPV PATRICIA Study Group. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women [published correction appears in Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1054]. Lancet. 2009;374(9686): 301-314.
8. Cuzick J, Castanon A, Sasieni P. Predicted impact of vaccination against human papillomavirus 16/18 on cancer incidence and cervical abnormalities in women aged 20-29 in the UK. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(5):933-939.
9. Franco EL, Mahmud SM, Tota J, Ferenczy A, Coutlee F. The expected impact of HPV vaccination on the accuracy of cervical cancer screening: the need for a paradigm change. Arch Med Res. 2009;40(6):478-485
10. Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2011. Evidence Syntheses, No. 86. AHRQ publication 11-05156-EF-1.
11. 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(23):1612-1623.
12. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening (NTCC) Working Group. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):249-257.
13. Solomon D, Nayar R, eds. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
14. Eversole G, Moriarty AT, Schwartz MR, et al. Practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology 2006. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(3):331-335.
15. Renshaw A, Davey DD, Birdsong GG, et al. Precision in gynecologic cytologic interpretation: a study from the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(11):1413-1420.
16. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al; 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors [published correction appears in J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17(3):367]. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2103;17(5):S1-S27.
17. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012;16(3):175-204.
18. Kulasingam SL, Havrilesky L, Ghebre R, Myers ER. Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; May 2011. AHRQ publication 11-05157-EF-1.
19. Benoy IH, Vanden Broeck DV, Ruymbeke MJ, et al. Prior knowledge of HPV status improves detection of CIN2+ by cytology screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6):569.e1-569.e7. http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(11)00896-9/fulltext. Accessed November 19, 2013.