SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Hakama M, Chamberlain J, Day NE, Miller AB, Prorok PC. Evaluations of screening programmes for vynaecological cancer. Br J Cancer 1985; 52: 66973.
  • 2
    Miller AB, Chamberlain J, Day NE, Hakama M, Prorok PC. Report on a workshop of the UICC project on evaluation of screening for cancer. Int J Cancer 1990; 46: 7619.
  • 3
    Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141: 6809.
  • 4
    Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselbald V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Int Med 2000; 132: 8109.
  • 5
    McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, Nanda K. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evid Rep Technol Assess 1999: 16.
  • 6
    Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4: 173.
  • 7
    Arbyn M, Baldauf JJ, Da Silva D. Methods and techniques of cervical cancer screening. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Luxemburg: European Commision, 2004.
  • 8
    Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Dupree W, Wright TC. Randomized clinical trial of the safety and efficacy of a “screen and treat” cervical cancer prevention program. 2006 (in preparation).
  • 9
    Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. New York: Springer-Verlag Telos, 1994.
  • 10
    Wright TC, Kurman RJ, Ferenczy A. Precancerous lesions of the cervix. In: Blaustein's pathology of the female genital tract. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
  • 11
    Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.
  • 12
    Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 2003; 99: 3315.
  • 13
    Baker JJ. Conventional and liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison study with clinical and histologic follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol 2002; 27: 1858.
  • 14
    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: 529.
  • 15
    Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap test: performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer 1999; 87: 10512.
  • 16
    Guidos BJ, Salvaggi SM. Use of the Thin Prep Pap test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 20: 703.
  • 17
    Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 209213.
  • 18
    Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 70914.
  • 19
    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: 81721.
  • 20
    Dupree WB, Suprun HZ, Beckwith DG, Shane JJ, Lucente V. The promise and risk of a new technology. Cancer 1998; 84: 2027.
  • 21
    Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. J Reprod Med 2000; 45: 9126.
  • 22
    Klinkamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 2003; 99: 26371.
  • 23
    Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quanitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 90: 13744.
  • 24
    Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, Brown JL, Becker LA, Grant WD. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 10406.
  • 25
    Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56: 76574.
  • 26
    Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Shermann ME, Herrero R, Alfaro M, Bratti MC, Hildesheim A, Lorincz AT, Greenberg MD, Morales J, Schiffman M. 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: 4855.
  • 27
    Coste J, Cochand-Priiollet B, de Cremoux P, Le Gales C, Cartier I, Molinie V, Labbe S, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Vielh P. Cross-sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003; 326: 7337.
  • 28
    Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, Patten FW, Zhaniser DJ. Homogenous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101: 2159.
  • 29
    Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 concensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002; 287: 21209.
  • 30
    Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002; 287: 238290.
  • 31
    Moss SM, Gray A, Legood R, Henstock E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC cervical screening pilot studies: first report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC (December 2002, revised January 2003). www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/lbc-pilot-evaluation.pdf, 2003.
  • 32
    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: 2939.