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

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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

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
  • 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

    CoxJT. Evaluation of abnormal cervical cytology. Clin Lab Med.2000;20:30343.

  • 3

    RiesLAGKosaryCLHankeyBF. 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 SocietyCancer 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;14:138.

  • 8

    SaslowDRunowiczCDSolomonD. for the American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin.2002;52:342362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    PapanicolaouGNTrautHF. Diagnosis of Uterine Cancer by the Vaginal Smear.New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund; 1943.

  • 10

    BogdanichW. The Pap test misses much cervical cancer through lab error. Wall Street Journal.Nov.21987: 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. JAMA1989;262:931934.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    FaheyMTIrwigLMacaskillP. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol1995;141:680689.

  • 14

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

  • 15

    KlinkhamerPJMeerdingWJRosierPF. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer.2003;99:263271.

  • 16

    HurleyAADouglassKLZahniserDJ. Improved technology for cytology specimen preparation. Am Clin Lab1991;10:2022.

  • 17

    StolerMH. Advances in cervical screening technology. Mod Pathol2000;13:275284.

  • 18

    HutchinsonMLIsensteinLMGoodmanA. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol.1994;101:215219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    ZahniserDJHurleyAA. Automated slide preparation system for the clinical laboratory. Cytometry.1996;26: 6064.

  • 20

    BralyPKinneyWSheetsE. Reporting the potential benefits of new technologies for cervical cancer screening. J Low Gen Tract Dis2000;5:7381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    GuptaPKBalochZWCobbsC. Processing liquid-based gynecologic specimens: comparison of the available techniques. Acta Cytol.2001;45:995998.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    BishopJWBignerSHColganTJ. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol.1998;42:189197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    TenchW. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med.2000;45:912916.

  • 24

    KarnonJPetersJPlattJ. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess.2004;8:178.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    PayneNChilcottJMcGooganE. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess.2000;4:173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    HutchinsonMLCassinCMBallHG. The efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol1991;96:300305.

  • 27

    HutchinsonMLAgarwalPDenaultT. A new look at cervical cytology. ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol1992;36:499504.

  • 28

    AwenCHathwaySEddyW. Efficacy of ThinPrep preparation of cervical smears: A 1,000-case, investigator-sponsored study. Diagn Cytopathol1994;11:3336; discussion 36–37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    WilburDCCibasESMerrittS. ThinPrep Processor: Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol1994; 101:209214.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    LavertyCRThurloeJKRedmanNLFarnsworthA. An Australian trial of ThinPrep: A new cytopreparatory technique. Cytopathology1995;6:140148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Aponte-CiprianiSLTeplitzCRoratE. Cervical smears prepared by an automated device versus the conventional method: A comparative analysis. Acta Cytol1995;39:623630.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    SheetsEEConstantineNMDiniscoS. Colposcopically directed biopsies proived a basis for comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smears. J Gynecol Techn1995;1:2733.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    BurMKnowlesKPekowP. Comparison of ThinPrep preparations with conventional cervicovaginal smears: Practical considerations. Acta Cytol1995;39:631642.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    TezukaFOikawaHShukiHHigashiiwaiH. Diagnostic efficacy and validity of the ThinPrep method in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol1996;40:513518.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    FerenczyARobitailleJFrancoE. Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears: A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol1996;40:11361142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    WilburDCDubeshterBAngelCAtkisonKM. Use of thin-layer preparations for gynecologic smears with emphasis on the cytomorphology of high-grade intraepithelial lesions and carcinomas. Diagn Cytopathol1996;14:201211.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    LeeKRAshfaqRBirdsongGG. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol1997;90:278284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    RobertsJMGurleyAMThurloeJK. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust1997;167:466469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    CorkillMKnappDHutchinsonML. Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula. J Low Gen Tract Dis1998;2:1216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    HutchinsonMLZahniserDJShermanME. 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. Cancer1999;87:4855.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    WangTYChenHSYangYCTsouMC. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology. J Formos Med Assoc1999;98:500505.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    MonsonegoJAutillo-TouatiABergeronC. Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study. Br J Cancer2001;84:360366.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    ParkIALeeSNChaeSW. 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 Cytol2001;45:525531.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    BiscottiCVO'BrienDLGeroMA. Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear: Analysis of 400 split samples. J Reprod Med2002;47:913.

  • 45

    LuthraUKChishtiMDeyP. Performance of monolayered cervical smears in a gynecology outpatient setting in Kuwait. Acta Cytol2002;46:303310.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    RingMBolgerNO'DonnellM. Evaluation of liquid-based cytology in cervical screening of high-risk populations: A split study of colposcopy and genitourinary medicine populations. Cytopathology2002;13:152159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    VassilakosPCossaliDAlbeX. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: Emphasis on suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol1996;40:496500.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    TakahashiMNaitoM. Application of the CytoRich monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology: A prelude to automated primary screening. Acta Cytol1997;41:17851789.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    HowellLPDavisRLBelkTI. The AutoCyte preparation system for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol1998;42:171177.

  • 50

    GeyerJWHancockFCarricoCKirkpatrickM. Preliminary evaluation of Cyto-Rich: An improved automated cytology preparation. Diagn Cytopathol1993;9:417422.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    SprengerESchwarzmannPKirkpatrickM. The false negative rate in cervical cytology: Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol1996;40:8189.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    BishopJW. Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology: Preliminary data on 2,032 cases from a clinical trial site. Acta Cytol1997;41:1523.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    LavertyCRFarnsworthAThurloeJK. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process. Anal Quant Cytol Histol1997;19:239245.

  • 54

    WilburDCFacikMSRutkowskiMA. Clinical trials of the CytoRich specimen-preparation device for cervical cytology: Preliminary results. Acta Cytol1997;41: 2429.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    StevensMWNespolonWWMilneAJRowlandR. Evaluation of the CytoRich technique for cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol.1998;18:23642.

  • 56

    MingeLFlemingMVanGeemTBishopJW. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology: Comparison based on 2,156 cases. J Reprod Med2000;45:179184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 57

    BergeronCBishopJLemarieA. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol2001;45:519524.

  • 58

    WeintraubJWengerD. 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 Gyns1998;5:164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59

    BolickDRHellmanDJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol1998;42:209213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60

    DupreeWBSuprunHZBeckwithDG. The promise and risk of a new technology: The Lehigh Valley Hospital's experience with liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer1998;84:202207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61

    PapilloJLZarkaMASt JohnTL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice: A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol1998;42:203208.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62

    VassilakosPGriffinSMegevandECampanaA. CytoRich liquid-based cervical cytologic test: Screening results in a routine cytopathology service. Acta Cytol1998;42:198202.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63

    VassilakosPSaurelJRondezR. Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte PREP liquid-based preparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol1999;43:6568.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64

    CarpenterABDaveyDD. ThinPrep Pap Test: Performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer.1999;87:105112.

  • 65

    Diaz-RosarioLAKabawatSE. 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 Med1999;123:817821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 66

    GuidosBJSelvaggiSM. Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol1999;20:7073.

  • 67

    WeintraubJMorabiaA. Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol2000;22:5259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68

    FerrisDGHeidemannNLLitakerMSCrosbyJHMacfeeMS. The efficacy of liquid-based cervical cytology using direct-to-vial sample collection. J Fam Pract.2000;49: 100511.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69

    MarinoJFFremont-SmithM. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med2001;46:353358.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70

    DaySJDeszoELFreundGG. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol2002;118:4146.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71

    BakerJJ. Conventional and liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A comparison study with clinical and histologic follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol2002;27:185188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 72

    BernsteinSJSanchez-RamosLNdubisiB. 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 Gynecol2001;185:308317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 73

    ShermanME. Chapter 11: Future directions in cervical pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr2003;31:7279.

  • 74

    RenshawAAYoungNABirdsongGG. Comparison of performance of conventional and ThinPrep gynecologic preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med2004; 128:1722.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 75

    NandaKMcCroryDCMyersER. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med2000;132:810819.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 76

    SulikSMKroegerKSchultzJK. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract2001;50:10401046.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 77

    AbulafiaOPezzulloJCShererDM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol2003;90:137144.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 78

    ClavelCMasureMBoryJP. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer2001;84:16161623.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 79

    BelinsonJQiaoYLPretoriusR. Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: A cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol2001;83:439444.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 80

    KulasingamSLHughesJPKiviatNB. Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA2002;288:17491757.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 81

    ObwegeserJHBrackS. 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 Cytol2001;45:709714.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 82

    SchledermannDEjersboDHoelundB. Significance of atypia in conventional Papanicolaou smears and liquid-based cytology: a follow-up study. Cytopathology2004;15:148153.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 83

    NegriGMeniaEEgarter-ViglE. ThinPrep versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in the cytologic follow-up of women with equivocal cervical smears. Cancer2003;99:342345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 84

    UyarDSEltabbakhGHMountSL. Positive predictive value of liquid-based and conventional cervical Papanicolaou smears reported as malignant. Gynecol Oncol2003;89:227232.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 85

    ChachoMSMattieMESchwartzPE. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison. Cancer2003;99:135140.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 86

    WangSSShermanMEHildesheimA. Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976–2000. Cancer2004;100:10351044.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 87

    MitchellHHockingJSavilleM. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening. Cancer2003;99:336341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 88

    AshfaqRGibbonsDVelaCSaboorianMHIliyaF. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol1999;43:8185.

  • 89

    BaiHSungCJSteinhoffMM. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol2000;23:1922.

  • 90

    HechtJLSheetsEELeeKR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer2002;96:14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 91

    SchorgeJOHossein SaboorianMHynanL. ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer2002;96:338343.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 92

    StudemanKDIoffeOBPuszkiewiczJ. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol2003;47: 605610.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 93

    BelinsonJLPanQJBiscottiC. Primary screening with liquid-based cytology in an unscreened population in rural China, with an emphasis on reprocessing unsatisfactory samples. Acta Cytol2002;46:470474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 94

    MichaelCWMcConnelJPecottJ. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol2001;25:177184.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 95

    CastlePESolomonDHildesheimA. Stability of archived liquid-based cervical cytologic specimens. Cancer2003;99:8996.

  • 96

    ManosMMKinneyWKHurleyLB. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA1999;281:16051610.

    • 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 Gynecol2003;188:13831392.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 98

    LeviAWKellyDPRosenthalDL. 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. Cancer2003;99:191197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 99

    WrightTCJrCoxJTMassadLS. ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA2002;287:21202129.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 100

    NollerKLBettesBZinbergS. Cervical cytology screening practices among obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol2003;102:259265.

  • 101

    ZunaREMooreWDunnST. HPV DNA testing of the residual sample of liquid-based Pap test: utility as a quality assurance monitor. Mod Pathol2001;14:147151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 102

    KohlKSMarkowitzLEKoumansEH. Developments in the screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am2003;30:637658.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 103

    KoumansEHBlackCMMarkowitzLE. 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 Microbiol2003;41:15071511.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 104

    DarwinLHCullenAPArthurPM. Comparison of Digene hybrid capture 2 and conventional culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in cervical specimens. J Clin Microbiol2002;40: 641644.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 105

    BrownADGarberAM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA1999;281:347353.

  • 106

    SawayaGFBrownADWashingtonAE. Clinical practice. Current approaches to cervical-cancer screening. N Engl J Med2001;344:16031607.

  • 107

    WardJ. 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 Health1999;23:301304.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 108

    WardMMarteauTMSeniorV. Women's understanding of a “normal smear test result”: Experimental questionnaire based study. Br Med J2001;322:526528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 109

    KimJJWrightTCGoldieSJ. Cost effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA2002;287:23822390.

    • 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 Rep1995;44(RR–8):134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 113

    YeohGPChanKW. Cell block preparation on residual ThinPrep sample. Diagn Cytopathol1999;21:427431.

  • 114

    RappaportKMForrestCBHoltzmanNA. Adoption of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests by family physicians and gynecologists. Health Serv Res2004;39:927947.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 115

    MarchandLVan DinterMMundtM. Current cervical cancer screening practices of Dane County, Wisconsin primary care clinicians. WMJ2003;102:3540.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 116

    AnhangRGoodmanAGoldieSJ. HPV communication: Review of existing research and recommendations for patient education. Cancer J Clin2004;64:248259.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 117

    HildebrandtEFLeeJRCrosbyJH. Liquid-based pap smears as a source of RNA for gene expression analysis. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol2003;11:345351.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 118

    YoshidaTFukudaTSanoT. 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. Cancer2004;102:100108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 175 157 14
PDF Downloads 105 104 12
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0