Liquid-Based Cytology: Evaluation of Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness, and Application to Present Practice

Author:
J. Thomas CoxWomen's Clinic, Health Services, the University of California, Santa Barbara, California

Search for other papers by J. Thomas Cox in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
 MD
Volume/Issue:
Volume 2: Issue 6
Online Publication Date:
Nov 2004
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2004.0050
Full access

This article reviews the data available as of 2004 on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening with the two available cytologic methods, the conventional Papanicolaou (Pap; CP) smear and liquid-based cytology (LBC), and discusses the application of LBC to current practice. The majority of LBC studies are on the ThinPrep Pap Test (CYTYC, Boxsborough, MA) and the remainder are on SurePath (TriPath, Burlington, NC), which was previously known as AutoCyte Prep. LBC identified more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) Pap test results compared with paired conventional cytology in 17 of 21 ThinPrep and 9 of 12 SurePath “split-sample” studies considered to fulfill the criteria for inclusion in the British NHS Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluation of cervical cytology. In four of the six recent ThinPrep and one of two SurePath split-sample studies, more high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion-positive (HSIL+) results were identified by LBC than by CP. All 15 “direct-to vial studies” meeting HTA criteria reported more LSIL+ results for LBC compared with CP, and all eight of the direct-to-vial studies reporting HSIL+ results separately showed increased detection of high-grade cytology interpretations. Fifteen studies met the criteria for evaluating sensitivity and specificity. Aggregate sensitivity for the CP was 71.5% and for LBC was 80.1%. Indirect comparisons of the two LBC methods did not detect a difference in sensitivity, and a meta-analysis of the six studies comparing specificity between CP and LBC found no difference. Other capabilities of LBC are improved specimen adequacy and the ability to do ancillary testing out of the liquid-based vial. In cost-effective analyses based on models of disease natural history and/or the clinical effectiveness of each screening modality, screening with CP was always dominated by screening with LBC. Primary cervical screening guidelines issued by the American Cancer Society in 2002 recommend repeating the cytology biannually if liquid-based and annually if conventional. The gain in sensitivity, apparent cost-effectiveness, and advantage of having a representative specimen for ancillary testing, support the use of LBC.

J. Thomas Cox, MD, is a consultant for Digene, 3M Pharmaceuticals, and Dako Cytomation.

Correspondence: J. Thomas Cox, Director, Women's Clinic, Health Services, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. E-mail: cox-t@sa.ucsb.edu
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1

    U. S. Preventative Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventative services. Washington D.C.: US Sept of Health and Human Services; 2003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Cox JT. Evaluation of abnormal cervical cytology. Clin Lab Med. 2000;20:303–43.

  • 3

    Ries LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF et al.., eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1996. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1999.

  • 4

    Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, vol. VII. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1997.

  • 5

    American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 1997–2004. Available at http://www.cancer.org. Accessed October 2004.

  • 6

    Healthy People 2010. Available at http://www.healthy-people.gov. Accessed October 2004.

  • 7

    Cervical cancer. NIH Consensus Statement. Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health; 1996;14:1–38.

  • 8

    Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D et al.., for the American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:342–362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. Diagnosis of Uterine Cancer by the Vaginal Smear. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund; 1943.

  • 10

    Bogdanich W. The Pap test misses much cervical cancer through lab error. Wall Street Journal. Nov. 2, 1987: p. 1.

  • 11

    Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, 42 Washington, DC. Federal Registry. Part 405. 1992;57:7169.

  • 12

    National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnosis. JAMA 1989;262:931–934.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680–689.

  • 14

    Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 5. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999.

  • 15

    Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF et al.. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer. 2003;99:263–271.

  • 16

    Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Zahniser DJ. Improved technology for cytology specimen preparation. Am Clin Lab 1991;10:20–22.

  • 17

    Stoler MH. Advances in cervical screening technology. Mod Pathol 2000;13:275–284.

  • 18

    Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A et al.. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:215–219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Zahniser DJ, Hurley AA. Automated slide preparation system for the clinical laboratory. Cytometry. 1996;26: 60–64.

  • 20

    Braly P, Kinney W, Sheets E et al.. Reporting the potential benefits of new technologies for cervical cancer screening. J Low Gen Tract Dis 2000;5:73–81.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Gupta PK, Baloch ZW, Cobbs C et al.. Processing liquid-based gynecologic specimens: comparison of the available techniques. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:995–998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ et al.. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:189–197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:912–916.

  • 24

    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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–73.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Hutchinson ML, Cassin CM, Ball HG. The efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 1991;96:300–305.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T et al.. A new look at cervical cytology. ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol 1992;36:499–504.

  • 28

    Awen C, Hathway S, Eddy W et al.. Efficacy of ThinPrep preparation of cervical smears: A 1,000-case, investigator-sponsored study. Diagn Cytopathol 1994;11:33–36; discussion 36–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S et al.. ThinPrep Processor: Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101:209–214.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Laverty CR, Thurloe JK, Redman NL, Farnsworth A. An Australian trial of ThinPrep: A new cytopreparatory technique. Cytopathology 1995;6:140–148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Aponte-Cipriani SL, Teplitz C, Rorat E et al.. Cervical smears prepared by an automated device versus the conventional method: A comparative analysis. Acta Cytol 1995;39:623–630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Sheets EE, Constantine NM, Dinisco S et al.. Colposcopically directed biopsies proived a basis for comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smears. J Gynecol Techn 1995;1:27–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Bur M, Knowles K, Pekow P et al.. Comparison of ThinPrep preparations with conventional cervicovaginal smears: Practical considerations. Acta Cytol 1995;39:631–642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Tezuka F, Oikawa H, Shuki H, Higashiiwai H. Diagnostic efficacy and validity of the ThinPrep method in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:513–518.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E et al.. Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears: A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1136–1142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Wilbur DC, Dubeshter B, Angel C, Atkison KM. Use of thin-layer preparations for gynecologic smears with emphasis on the cytomorphology of high-grade intraepithelial lesions and carcinomas. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;14:201–211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    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 Gynecol 1997;90:278–284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK et al.. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust 1997;167:466–469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Corkill M, Knapp D, Hutchinson ML. Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula. J Low Gen Tract Dis 1998;2:12–16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME et al.. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999;87:48–55.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Wang TY, Chen HS, Yang YC, Tsou MC. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology. J Formos Med Assoc 1999;98:500–505.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Monsonego J, Autillo-Touati A, Bergeron C et al.. Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study. Br J Cancer 2001;84:360–366.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Park IA, Lee SN, Chae SW et al.. Comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep Pap tests and conventional Papanicolaou smears on the basis of the histologic diagnosis: A clinical study of women with cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol 2001;45:525–531.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Biscotti CV, O'Brien DL, Gero MA et al.. Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear: Analysis of 400 split samples. J Reprod Med 2002;47:9–13.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Luthra UK, Chishti M, Dey P et al.. Performance of monolayered cervical smears in a gynecology outpatient setting in Kuwait. Acta Cytol 2002;46:303–310.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Ring M, Bolger N, O'Donnell M et al.. Evaluation of liquid-based cytology in cervical screening of high-risk populations: A split study of colposcopy and genitourinary medicine populations. Cytopathology 2002;13:152–159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Vassilakos P, Cossali D, Albe X et al.. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: Emphasis on suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol 1996;40:496–500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Takahashi M, Naito M. Application of the CytoRich monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology: A prelude to automated primary screening. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1785–1789.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    Howell LP, Davis RL, Belk TI et al.. The AutoCyte preparation system for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171–177.

  • 50

    Geyer JW, Hancock F, Carrico C, Kirkpatrick M. Preliminary evaluation of Cyto-Rich: An improved automated cytology preparation. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:417–422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M et al.. The false negative rate in cervical cytology: Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996;40:81–89.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Bishop JW. Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology: Preliminary data on 2,032 cases from a clinical trial site. Acta Cytol 1997;41:15–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe JK et al.. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1997;19:239–245.

  • 54

    Wilbur DC, Facik MS, Rutkowski MA et al.. Clinical trials of the CytoRich specimen-preparation device for cervical cytology: Preliminary results. Acta Cytol 1997;41: 24–29.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Stevens MW, Nespolon WW, Milne AJ, Rowland R. Evaluation of the CytoRich technique for cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:236–42.

  • 56

    Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology: Comparison based on 2,156 cases. J Reprod Med 2000;45:179–184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57

    Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A et al.. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol 2001;45:519–524.

  • 58

    Weintraub J, Wenger D. A large-scale investigator-sponsored field study of the test performance of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test in a low-risk routine outpatient setting. Prim Care Update Ob Gyns 1998;5:164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59

    Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998;42:209–213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60

    Dupree WB, Suprun HZ, Beckwith DG et al.. The promise and risk of a new technology: The Lehigh Valley Hospital's experience with liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 1998;84:202–207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61

    Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice: A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998;42:203–208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62

    Vassilakos P, Griffin S, Megevand E, Campana A. CytoRich liquid-based cervical cytologic test: Screening results in a routine cytopathology service. Acta Cytol 1998;42:198–202.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63

    Vassilakos P, Saurel J, Rondez R. Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte PREP liquid-based preparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol 1999;43:65–68.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64

    Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap Test: Performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer. 1999;87:105–112.

  • 65

    Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:817–821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66

    Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;20:70–73.

  • 67

    Weintraub J, Morabia A. Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:52–59.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68

    Ferris DG, Heidemann NL, Litaker MS, Crosby JH, Macfee MS. The efficacy of liquid-based cervical cytology using direct-to-vial sample collection. J Fam Pract. 2000;49: 1005–11.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med 2001;46:353–358.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70

    Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:41–46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    Baker JJ. Conventional and liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A comparison study with clinical and histologic follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:185–188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 72

    Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308–317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 73

    Sherman ME. Chapter 11: Future directions in cervical pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2003;31:72–79.

  • 74

    Renshaw AA, Young NA, Birdsong GG et al.. Comparison of performance of conventional and ThinPrep gynecologic preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004; 128:17–22.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 75

    Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER et al.. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810–819.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 76

    Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK et al.. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract 2001;50:1040–1046.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 77

    Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:137–144.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 78

    Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP et al.. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1616–1623.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 79

    Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R et al.. Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: A cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2001;83:439–444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 80

    Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB et al.. Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA 2002;288:1749–1757.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 81

    Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001;45:709–714.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 82

    Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B. Significance of atypia in conventional Papanicolaou smears and liquid-based cytology: a follow-up study. Cytopathology 2004;15:148–153.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 83

    Negri G, Menia E, Egarter-Vigl E et al.. ThinPrep versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in the cytologic follow-up of women with equivocal cervical smears. Cancer 2003;99:342–345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84

    Uyar DS, Eltabbakh GH, Mount SL. Positive predictive value of liquid-based and conventional cervical Papanicolaou smears reported as malignant. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:227–232.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 85

    Chacho MS, Mattie ME, Schwartz PE. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison. Cancer 2003;99:135–140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 86

    Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A et al.. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976–2000. Cancer 2004;100:1035–1044.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 87

    Mitchell H, Hocking J, Saville M. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening. Cancer 2003;99:336–341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 88

    Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;43:81–85.

  • 89

    Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23:19–22.

  • 90

    Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer 2002;96:1–4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 91

    Schorge JO, Hossein Saboorian M, Hynan L et al.. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer 2002;96:338–343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 92

    Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J et al.. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2003;47: 605–610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93

    Belinson JL, Pan QJ, Biscotti C et al.. Primary screening with liquid-based cytology in an unscreened population in rural China, with an emphasis on reprocessing unsatisfactory samples. Acta Cytol 2002;46:470–474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 94

    Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J et al.. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:177–184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 95

    Castle PE, Solomon D, Hildesheim A et al.. Stability of archived liquid-based cervical cytologic specimens. Cancer 2003;99:89–96.

  • 96

    Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB et al.. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999;281:1605–1610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 97

    ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1383–1392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 98

    Levi AW, Kelly DP, Rosenthal DL et al.. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in liquid-based cytologic specimens: results of reflex human papillomavirus testing and histologic follow-up in routine practice with comparison of interpretive and probabilistic reporting methods. Cancer 2003;99:191–197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 99

    Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS et al.. ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120–2129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 100

    Noller KL, Bettes B, Zinberg S et al.. Cervical cytology screening practices among obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:259–265.

  • 101

    Zuna RE, Moore W, Dunn ST. HPV DNA testing of the residual sample of liquid-based Pap test: utility as a quality assurance monitor. Mod Pathol 2001;14:147–151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 102

    Kohl KS, Markowitz LE, Koumans EH. Developments in the screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2003;30:637–658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 103

    Koumans EH, Black CM, Markowitz LE et al.. Comparison of methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae using commercially available nucleic acid amplification tests and a liquid Pap smear medium. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:1507–1511.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 104

    Darwin LH, Cullen AP, Arthur PM et al.. Comparison of Digene hybrid capture 2 and conventional culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in cervical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40: 641–644.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 105

    Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 1999;281:347–353.

  • 106

    Sawaya GF, Brown AD, Washington AE et al.. Clinical practice. Current approaches to cervical-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1603–1607.

  • 107

    Ward J. Population-based mammographic screening: Does ‘informed choice’ require any less than full disclosure to individuals of benefits, harms, limitations, and consequences? Aust N Z J Public Health 1999;23:301–304.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 108

    Ward M, Marteau TM, Senior V et al.. Women's understanding of a “normal smear test result”: Experimental questionnaire based study. Br Med J 2001;322:526–528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 109

    Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002;287:2382–2390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 110

    ACOG Practice Bulletin. Cervical cytology screening. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2003.

  • 111

    U. S. Preventative Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventative services. Washington, D.C.: US Sept of Health and Human Services; 2003.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 112

    Centers for Disease Control. CDC guideline for immunocompromised women; USPHS/IDSA Guidelines for the prevention of opportunistic infections in persons infected with human immunodefiency virus: A summary. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995;44(RR–8):1–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 113

    Yeoh GP, Chan KW. Cell block preparation on residual ThinPrep sample. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:427–431.

  • 114

    Rappaport KM, Forrest CB, Holtzman NA. Adoption of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests by family physicians and gynecologists. Health Serv Res 2004;39:927–947.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 115

    Marchand L, Van Dinter M, Mundt M et al.. Current cervical cancer screening practices of Dane County, Wisconsin primary care clinicians. WMJ 2003;102:35–40.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 116

    Anhang R, Goodman A, Goldie SJ. HPV communication: Review of existing research and recommendations for patient education. Cancer J Clin 2004;64:248–259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 117

    Hildebrandt EF, Lee JR, Crosby JH et al.. Liquid-based pap smears as a source of RNA for gene expression analysis. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2003;11:345–351.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 118

    Yoshida T, Fukuda T, Sano T et al.. Usefulness of liquid-based cytology specimens for the immunocytochemical study of p16 expression and human papillomavirus testing: a comparative study using simultaneously sampled histology materials. Cancer 2004;102:100–108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Copyright:
Copyright © 2004 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2004
Page Numbers:
15
Article Category:
Research Article
Received:
04 Aug 2004
Accepted:
22 Sep 2004
Print Publication Date:
01 Nov 2004
Online Publication Date:
Nov 2004
Keywords:
Liquid-based cytology (LBC); conventional Papanicolaou smear; human papillomavirus (HPV) testing; cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 (CIN 2,3)
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 859 242 18
PDF Downloads 739 246 19
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0