SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Arbyn M, Castellsague X, de Sanjose S, et al. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22: 2675-2686.
  • 2
    Arbyn M, Rebolj M, de Kok IM, et al. The challenges for organising cervical screening programmes in the 15 old member states of the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 2671-2678.
  • 3
    Solomon D, Schiffman MA, Tarone B. Comparison of 3 management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS): baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 293-299.
  • 4
    Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, et al. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96: 280-293.
  • 5
    Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer CJ, et al. Chapter 9: clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine. 2006; 24(suppl 3): S78-S89.
  • 6
    Zuna RE, Wang SS, Rosenthal DL, et al. Determinants of human papillomavirus-negative, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS). Cancer Cytopathol. 2005; 105: 253-262.
  • 7
    Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Buntinx F, et al. Triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cervical cytology results. a meta-analysis of the HPV test positivity rate. J Cell Mol Med. 2009; 13: 648-659.
  • 8
    Benevolo M, Vocaturo A, Mottolese M, et al. Clinical role of p16INK4a expression in liquid-based cervical cytology: correlation with HPV testing and histologic diagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008; 129: 606-612.
  • 9
    McLaughlin-Drubin ME, Crum CP, Munger K. Human papillomavirus E7 oncoprotein induces KDM6A and KDM6B histone demethylase expression and causes epigenetic reprogramming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108: 2130-2135.
  • 10
    Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al. Overexpression of p16(INK4A) as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer. 2001; 92: 276-284.
  • 11
    Wentzensen N, von Knebel Doeberitz M. Biomarkers in cervical cancer screening. Dis Markers. 2007; 23: 315-330.
  • 12
    Schmidt D, Bergeron C, Denton KJ, Ridder R. p16/ki-67 dual-Stain cytology in the triage of ASCUS and LSIL Papanicolaou cytology: results from the European Equivocal or Mildly Abnormal Papanicolaou Cytology study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011; 119: 158-166.
  • 13
    Tsoumpou I, Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, et al. p16INK4a immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009; 35: 210-220.
  • 14
    Arbyn M, Ronco G, Cuzick J, Wentzensen N, Castle PE. How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening? Int J Cancer. 2009; 125: 2489-2496.
  • 15
    Lundberg GD; National Cancer Institute. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA. 1989; 262: 931-934.
  • 16
    Evans DM, Hudson EA, Brown CL, et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1986; 39: 933-944.
  • 17
    Dudding N, Sutton J. BSCC Terminology Conference, koilocytosis and mild dyskaryosis. Cytopathology. 2002; 13: 379-381.
  • 18
    Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews [serial online]. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003; 3: 1-13.
  • 19
    Harbord RM, Deeks JJ, Egger M, Whiting P, Sterne JA. A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics. 2007; 8: 239-251.
  • 20
    Harbord RM, Whiting P. Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J. 2009; 9: 211-229.
  • 21
    Takwoingi Y; Diagnostic Test AccuracyWorking Group. METADAS: A SAS Macro for Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.; 2009. Available at: http://srdta.cochrane.org/sites/srdta.cochrane.org/files/uploads/METADAS %20Quick%20Reference%20WorkedExample%20v1.3.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2011.
  • 22
    Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Available at: http://srdta.cochrane.org/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed November 30, 2011.
  • 23
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration [serial online]. PloS Med. 2009; 6: e1000100.
  • 24
    Meyer JL, Hanlon DW, Andersen BT, Rasmussen OF, Bisgaard K. Evaluation of p16(INK4a) expression in ThinPrep cervical specimens with the CINtec p16(INK4a) assay: correlation with biopsy follow-up results. Cancer Cytopathol. 2007; 111: 83-92.
  • 25
    Tsoumpou I, Valasoulis G, Founta C, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus DNA test and p16(INK4a) in the triage of LSIL: a prospective diagnostic study. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 121: 49-53.
  • 26
    Alameda F, Alameda F, Piujan L, et al. The value of p16 in ASCUS cases: a retrospective study using frozen cytologic material. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011; 39: 110-114.
  • 27
    Edgerton N, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT. Evaluation of CINtec PLUS® testing as an adjunctive test in ASC-US diagnosed SurePath® preparations [published online ahead of print June 27, 2011]. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011.
  • 28
    Guo M, Warriage I, Mutyala B, et al. Evaluation of p16 immunostaining to predict high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with Pap results of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011; 39: 482-488.
  • 29
    Nieh S, Chen SF, Chu TY, et al. Is p16(INK4A) expression more useful than human papillomavirus test to determine the outcome of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance-categorized Pap smear? A comparative analysis using abnormal cervical smears with follow-up biopsies. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 97: 35-40.
  • 30
    Sung CO, Kim SR, Oh YL, Song SY. The use of p16(INK4A) immunocytochemistry in “atypical squamous cells which cannot exclude HSIL” compared with “atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance” in liquid-based cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010; 38: 168-171.
  • 31
    Denton KJ, Bergeron C, Klement P, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of p16INK4a cytology vs HPV testing for detecting high-grade cervical disease in the triage of ASC-US and LSIL Pap cytology results. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010; 134: 12-21.
  • 32
    Holladay EB, Logan S, Arnold J, Knesel B, Smith GD. A comparison of the clinical utility of p16(INK4a) immunolocalization with the presence of human papillomavirus by Hybrid Capture 2 for the detection of cervical dysplasia/neoplasia. Cancer. 2006; 108: 451-461.
  • 33
    Monsonego J, Pollini G, Evrard MJ, et al. P16(INK4a) immunocytochemistry in liquid-based cytology samples in equivocal Pap smears: added value in management of women with equivocal Pap smear. Acta Cytol. 2007; 51: 755-766.
  • 34
    Nasioutziki M, Daniilidis A, Dinas K, et al. The evaluation of p16INK4a immunoexpression/immunostaining and human papillomavirus DNA test in cervical liquid-based cytological samples. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011; 21: 79-85.
  • 35
    Passamonti B, Gustinuci D, Rechia P, et al. Expression of p16 in abnormal Pap-tests as an indicator of CIN2+ lesions: a possible role in the low grade ASC/US and L/Sil (lg) cytologic lesions for screening prevention of uterine cervical tumours. Pathologica. 2010; 102: 6-11.
  • 36
    Samarawardana P, Dehn DL, Singh M, et al. p16(INK4a) is superior to high-risk human papillomavirus testing in cervical cytology for the prediction of underlying high-grade dysplasia. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010; 118: 146-156.
  • 37
    Schledermann D, Andersen BT, Bisgaard K, et al. Are adjunctive markers useful in routine cervical cancer screening? Application of p16(INK4a) and HPV-PCR on ThinPrep samples with histological follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008; 36: 453-459.
  • 38
    Szarewski A, Ambroisine L, Cadman L, et al. Comparison of predictors for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17: 3033-3043.
  • 39
    Wentzensen N, Bergeron C, Cas F, Vinokurova S, von Knebel Doeberitz M. Triage of women with ASCUS and LSIL cytology: use of qualitative assessment of p16INK4a positive cells to identify patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer Cytopathol. 2007; 111: 58-66.
  • 40
    Wentzensen N, Bergeron C, Cas F, et al. Evaluation of a nuclear score for p16(INK4a)-stained cervical squamous cells in liquid-based cytology samples. Cancer Cytopathol. 2005; 105: 461-467.
  • 41
    [No authors listed] Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with cytologic evidence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: baseline data from a randomized trial. The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraeithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 397-402.
  • 42
    ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study 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.
  • 43
    Arbyn M, Roelens J, Martin-Hirsch P, Leeson S, Wentzensen N. Use of HC2 to triage women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis in the UK. Br J Cancer. 2011; 105: 877-880.
  • 44
    Zhang Q, Kuhn L, Denny LA, et al. Impact of utilizing p16(INK4A) immunohistochemistry on estimated performance of 3 cervical cancer screening tests. Int J Cancer. 2006; 120: 351-356.
  • 45
    Bergeron C, Ordi J, Schmidt D, et al. Conjunctive p16INK4a testing significantly increases accuracy in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010; 133: 395-406.
  • 46
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003; 326: 41-44.