Factors associated with reduced accuracy in Papanicolaou tests for patients with invasive cervical cancer

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 122, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 694-701

  Zhao, Lichao ^a   Wentzensen, Nicolas ^b   Zhang, Roy R ^a   Dunn, S Terence ^a   Gold, Michael A ^a   Wang, Sophia S ^c   Schiffman, Mark ^b   Walker, Joan L ^a   Zuna, Rosemary E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer screening; cervical neoplasms; cervical smears; cytodiagnosis; human papillomavirus DNA tests

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FEMALE; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; TUMOR INVASION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; VERY ELDERLY; WART VIRUS; CANCER SCREENING; CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; CERVICAL SMEARS; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VIROLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

CANCER SCREENING; CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; CERVICAL SMEARS; CYTODIAGNOSIS; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TESTS;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84908489612     PISSN: 1934662X     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21443     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A,. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63: 11-30.
2. Duggan MA, Nation J,. An audit of the cervical cancer screening histories of 246 women with carcinoma. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012; 16: 263-270.
3. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al,; American Cancer Society; American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology; American Society for Clinical Pathology. 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. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012; 137: 516-542.
4. AbdullGaffar B, Kamal MO,. Not all unsatisfactory ThinPrep cervical Pap tests are unsatisfactory: reprocessing improves the satisfactory and detection rates of ThinPrep cervical cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010; 38: 699-701.
5. Bentz JS, Rowe LR, Gopez EV, Marshall CJ,. The unsatisfactory ThinPrep Pap Test: missed opportunity for disease detection? Am J Clin Pathol. 2002; 117: 457-463.
6. Hock YL, Ramaiah S, Wall ES, et al., Outcome of women with inadequate cervical smears followed up for 5 years. J Clin Pathol. 2003; 56: 592-595.
7. Islam S, West AM, Saboorian MH, Ashfaq R,. Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep Papanicolaou test specimens increases sample adequacy and detection of significant cervicovaginal lesions. Cancer. 2004; 102: 67-73.
8. Nygard JF, Sauer T, Nygard M, Skare GB, Thoresen SO,. CIN 2/3 and cervical cancer in an organised screening programme after an unsatisfactory or a normal Pap smear: a seven-year prospective study of the Norwegian population-based screening programme. J Med Screen. 2004; 11: 70-76.
9. Pang Y, Smola B, Pu RT, Michael CW,. Restoring satisfactory status in ThinPrep Pap test specimens with too few squamous cells and containing microscopic red blood cells. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008; 36: 696-700.
10. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski S,. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer. 1997; 81: 139-143.
11. Rosa M, Pragasam P, Saremian J, Aoalin A, Graf W, Mohammadi A,. The unsatisfactory ThinPrep®Pap Test: analysis of technical aspects, most common causes, and recommendations for improvement. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013; 41: 588-594.
12. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR,. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol. 1985; 29: 1043-1046.
13. Wang SS, Zuna RE, Wentzensen N, et al., Human papillomavirus cofactors by disease progression and human papillomavirus types in the study to understand cervical cancer early endpoints and determinants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009; 18: 113-120.
14. Wentzensen N, Schwartz L, Zuna RE, et al., Performance of p16/Ki-67 immunostaining to detect cervical cancer precursors in a colposcopy referral population. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18: 4154-4162.
15. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al,; Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2114-2119.
16. Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, Dunn ST, et al., Grading the severity of cervical neoplasia based on combined histopathology, cytopathology, and HPV genotype distribution among 1,700 women referred to colposcopy in Oklahoma. Int J Cancer. 2009; 124: 964-969.
17. Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, Burda BU, Senger CA, Lutz K,. Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 698-705.
18. Schwartz PE, Hadjimichael O, Lowell DM, Merino MJ, Janerich D,. Rapidly progressive cervical cancer: the Connecticut experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 1105-1109.
19. Hildesheim A, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al., Risk factors for rapid-onset cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 571-577.
20. Nance KV,. Unsatisfactory cervical cytology screening specimens are associated with missed cervical dysplasia and cancer. BJOG. 2009; 116: 866-867; author reply 867.
21. Paterson ME, Peel KR, Joslin CA,. Cervical smear histories of 500 women with invasive cervical cancer in Yorkshire. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984; 289: 896-898.
22. Sherman ME, Kelly D,. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of 3 negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failures or rapid progression? Mod Pathol. 1992; 5: 337-342.
23. 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. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 829-846.
24. 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: 738-743.
25. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Vedder JE, Arbyn M, Bulten J,. Causes and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136: 76-83.
26. Leung KM, Lam KK, Tse PY, Yeoh GP, Chan KW,. Characteristics of false-negative ThinPrep cervical smears in women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Hong Kong Med J. 2008; 14: 292-295.
27. Krane JF, Granter SR, Trask CE, Hogan CL, Lee KR,. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001; 93: 8-15.
28. Li N, Franceschi S, Howell-Jones R, Snijders PJ, Clifford GM,. Human papillomavirus type distribution in 30,848 invasive cervical cancers worldwide: variation by geographical region, histological type and year of publication. Int J Cancer. 2011; 128: 927-935.
29. Agoff SN, Dean T, Nixon BK, Ingalls-Severn K, Rinker L, Grieco VS,. The efficacy of reprocessing unsatisfactory cervicovaginal ThinPrep specimens with and without glacial acetic acid: effect on Hybrid Capture II human papillomavirus testing and clinical follow-up. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002; 118: 727-732.
30. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R,; ALTS Study Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 293-299.
31. Zhao C, Austin RM,. High-risk human papillomavirus DNA test results are useful for disease risk stratification in women with unsatisfactory liquid-based cytology pap test results. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2009; 13: 79-84.
32. Maksem JA, Dhanwada V, Trueblood JE, et al., Testing automated liquid-based cytology samples with a manual liquid-based cytology method using residual cell suspensions from 500 ThinPrep cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006; 34: 391-396.