SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Massad LS, Collins YC, Meyer PM. Biopsy correlates of abnormal cervical cytology classified using the Bethesda system. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 82: 516-522.
  • 2
    Evans MF, Adamson CS, Papillo J, St John TL, Leiman G, Cooper K. Distribution of human papillomavirus types in ThinPrep papanicolaou tests classified according to the bethesda 2001 terminology and correlations with patient age and biopsy outcomes. Cancer Cytopathol. 2006; 106: 1054-1064.
  • 3
    Dunn TS, Burke M, Shwayer J. A “see and treat” management for high grade squmaous intraepithelial lesion Pap smears. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2003; 7: 104-106.
  • 4
    Jones BA, davey DD. Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 672-681.
  • 5
    Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22,439 correaltions in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 523-531.
  • 6
    Moscicki AB, Cox JT. Practice improvements in cervical screening and management (PICSM): symposium on management of cervical abnormalities in adolescents and young women. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010; 14: 73-80.
  • 7
    Sasieni P, Castanõn A, Parkin MD. Response to: why young women should be screened for cervical cancer: the distinction between CIN2 and CIN3. Int J Cancer. 2010; 126: 2257-2258.
  • 8
    Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D; 2006 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology-sponsored Consensus Conference. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 340-345.
  • 9
    Wright JD, Davila RM, Pinto KR, et al. Cervical dysplasia in adolescents. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 115-120.
  • 10
    Morrison BJ, Coldman AJ, Boyes DA, Andersin GH. Forty years of repeated screening: the significance of carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74: 814-819.
  • 11
    Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler C, Solomon D. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 18-25.
  • 12
    Ovestad IT, Gudlaugson E, Skaland I, et al. Local immune response in the microenvironment of CIN2-3 with and without spontaneous regression. Mod Pathol. 2010; 23: 1231-1240.
  • 13
    Garcia F, Petry KU, Muderspach L, et al. ZYC101a for treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 317-326.
  • 14
    Jenkins D. Histopathology and cytopathology of cervical cancer. Dis Markers. 2007; 23: 199-212.
  • 15
    US Food and Drug Administration. FDA News: FDA approves expanded use of HPV test. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html. Accessed March 9, 2011.
  • 16
    Cox TC, Schiffman M, Solomon D, et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testin as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 304-309.
  • 17
    Zhao C, Zhao S, Heider A, Austin RM. Significance of high risk HPV DNA detection in women 50 and older with squamous cell papanicolaou test abnormalities. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134: 1130-1135.
  • 18
    Dalston V, Riethmuller D, Pretet J, et al. Persistence and load of high-risk HPV are predictors for development of high grade cervical lesions: a longitudinal French cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2003; 106: 396-403.
  • 19
    Woodman CBJ, Collins SI, Young LI. The natural history of cervical HPV infection: unresolved issues. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007; 7: 11-22.
  • 20
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2114-2119.
  • 21
    Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ. 2007; 333: 31.
  • 22
    US Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) web site. Available at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ Accessed March 9, 2011.
  • 23
    Zhao C, Austin RM. Human papillomavirus DNA detection in ThinPrep Pap test vials is independent of cytologic sampling of the transformation zone. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 107: 231-235.
  • 24
    Zhao C, Austin RM. Adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing is a useful option for disease risk assessment in patients with negative Papanicolaou tests without an endocervical/transformation zone sample. Cancer Cytopathol. 2008; 114: 242-248.
  • 25
    Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, Austin RM. Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114: 383-389.
  • 26
    Bandyopadhyay S, Austin RM, Dabbs D, Zhao C. Adjunctive human papillomavirus DNA testing is a useful option in some clinical settings for disease risk assessment and triage of females with ASC-H Papanicolaou test results. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008; 132: 1874-1881.
  • 27
    Armah H, Austin RM, Dabbs D, Zhao C. Follow-up findings for women with human papillomavirus-positive and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance screening test results in a large women's hospital practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 1426-1430.
  • 28
    Zhao C, Elishaev E, Yuan KH, Yu J, Austin RM. Very low human papillomavirus DNA prevalence in mature women with negative computer-imaged liquid-based Pap tests. Cancer. 2007; 111: 292-297.
  • 29
    Bansal M, Austin RM, Zhao C. High-risk HPV DNA detected in less than 2% of over 25,000 cytology negative imaged liquid-based Pap test samples from women 30 and older. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 115: 257-261.
  • 30
    Heider A, Austin RM, Zhao C. HPV test results stratify risk for histopathologic follow-up findings of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with LSIL Pap results. Acta Cytol. 2011; 55: 48-53.
  • 31
    Zhao C, Kalposi-Novak P, Austin RM. Follow-up findings in adolescents with HSIL Pap test results. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011; 135: 361-364.
  • 32
    Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, et al. Comparison between prototype hybrid capture 3 and hybrid capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. J Clin Microbiol. 2003; 41: 4022-4030.
  • 33
    Crum CP. Laboratory management of CIN 2: the consensus is consensus. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 130: 162-164.
  • 34
    Bergeron C, Ordi J, Schmidt D, Trunk MJ, Keller T, Ridder R; European CINtec Histology Study Group. Conjunctive p16INK4a testing significantly increases accuracy in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010; 133: 395-406.
  • 35
    McCredie MR, Sharples KJ, Paul C, et al. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9: 425-434.
  • 36
    Prey MU, Aisner S, Austin RM, et al. Cervical cytology practice guidelines. Acta Cytol. 2001; 45: 201-226.
  • 37
    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 specimen adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185: 308-317.
  • 38
    Ablufia O, Pezzullo JC, Shere DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid- based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 90: 137-144.
  • 39
    Eversole GM, Moriarty A, Schwarz 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: 331-335.
  • 40
    Sherman ME, Wang S, Tarone R, Rich L, Schiffman M. Histopathologic extent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 lesions in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study: implications for subject safety and lead-time bias. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003; 12: 372-379.
  • 41
    Jeronimo J, Schiffman M. Colposcopy at the crossroads. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 349-353.
  • 42
    Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson J, et al. Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 430-434.
  • 43
    Gage JC, Hanson VW, Abbey K, et al. Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 264-272.
  • 44
    Bansal M, Austin RM, Zhao C. Correlation of histopathologic follow-up findings with vaginal human papillomavirus and LSIL Pap test results. Arch Pathol Lab Med. In press.
  • 45
    Austin RM, Onisko A, Druzdel M. The Pittsburgh cervical cancer screening model: a risk assessment tool. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010; 134: 744-750.
  • 46
    Koliopoulos G, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Kyrgiou M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Diagnostic accuracy of Human Papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Gynecol Oncol. 2007; 104: 232-246.
  • 47
    Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, et al. Overview of North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2006; 119: 1095-1101.
  • 48
    Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al., the 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: 249-257.
  • 49
    Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow-up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47: 864-871.
  • 50
    Sasieni P. Has cytology become obsolete as a primary test in screening for cervical cancer? Commentary. J Med Screen. 2010; 17: 2-3.
  • 51
    Castle PE, Fetterman B, Cox JT, et al. The age-specific relationships of abnormal cytology and human papillomavirus DNA results to the risk of cervical precancer and cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 76-84.
  • 52
    Galliano GE, Moatamed NA, Lee S, et al. Reflex high risk HPV testing in atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high grade intraepithelial lesion: a large institution's experience with the significance of this often ordered test. Acta Cytol. 2011; 55: 167-172.
  • 53
    Davey DD, Greenspan D, Kurtycz DF, Husain M, Austin RM. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: review of ancillary testing modalities and implications for follow-up. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010; 14: 206-214.
  • 54
    Castle PE, Cox JT, Schiffman M, et al. Factors Influencing histologic confirmation of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112: 637-645.
  • 55
    Eltoum IA, Chhieng DC, Crowe DR, et al. Significance and possible causes of false-negative results of reflex human papillomavirus infection testing. Cancer Cytopathol. 2007; 111: 154-159.
  • 56
    Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler C, et al. Human papillomavirus genotypes in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19: 1675-1681.
  • 57
    Cox JT, Fetterman B, Castle PE, Kinney WK. Characteristics of 26 cervical cancers diagnosed following a HPV negative co-test in routine clinical practice. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010; 14: 247A.
  • 58
    Kinney WK, Fetterman B, Cox JT, et al. Characteristics of 44 cervical cancers diagnosed following Pap negative HPV positive screening in routine clinical practice. Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 121: 309-313..
  • 59
    Schiffman M, Wetnzensen N, Wacholder S, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 368-383.
  • 60
    Austin RM. Exhortations to abandon the Pap test as a routine initial cervical screening test are still premature and carry significant risks. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010; 38: 783-787.
  • 61
    Zaibo L, Austin RM, Guo M, Zhao C. Pap cytology and Hybrid capture 2 HPV DNA testing in 234 patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2011; 24S: 255A.
  • 62
    Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update. Int J Cancer. 2007; 121: 621-632.
  • 63
    de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemeny L, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 1048-1056.
  • 64
    Wheeler CM. HPV genotypes: implications for worldwide cervical cancer screening and vaccination. Lancet Oncol. 2010; 11: 1013-1014.
  • 65
    Carozzi FM, Tornesella ML, Burroni E, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus types in high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer in Italy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010; 19: 2389-2400.