SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures 2002.
  • 2
    Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: A worldwide perspective. International biological study on cervical cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 796802.
  • 3
    Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999; 189: 1219.
  • 4
    Park TW, Fujiwara H, Wright TC. Molecular biology of cervical cancer and its precursors. Cancer 1995; 76: 19021913.
  • 5
    Holowaty P, Miller AB, Rohan T, et al. Natural history of dysplasia of the uterine cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 252258.
  • 6
    Hildesheim A, Schiffman MH, Gravitt PE, et al. Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. J Infect Dis 1994; 169: 235240.
  • 7
    Moscicki AB, Shiboski S, Broering J, et al. The natural history of human papillomavirus infection as measured by repeated DNA testing in adolescent and young women. J Pediatr 1998; 132: 277284.
  • 8
    Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, et al. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 423428.
  • 9
    Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: Results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Cancer 1998; 84: 273280.
  • 10
    Cervical cancer. NIH Consens Statement 1996 Apr 1–3;14:138.
  • 11
    Fink DJ. Change in American Cancer Society Checkup Guidelines for detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1988; 38: 127128.
  • 12
    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): 134.
  • 13
    Mount SL, Papillo JL. A study of 10,296 pediatric and adolescent Papanicolaou smear diagnoses in northern New England. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 539545.
  • 14
    Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1999. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 2002. Available: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973_1999.
  • 15
    Syrjanen K, Kataja V, Yliskoski M, et al. Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus lesions does not substantiate the biologic relevance of the Bethesda System. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 675682.
  • 16
    Nasiell KV, Roger V, Nasiell M. Behavior of mild cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 67: 665669.
  • 17
    Nash JD, Burke TW, Hoskins VJ. Biologic course of cervical human papillomavirus infection. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 160162.
  • 18
    Moscicki AB, Hills N, Shiboski S. High regression rate of LSIL in adolescents. Abstract. Pediatric Academic Society Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, (5/4–5/7/02).
  • 19
    Nasiell K, Nasiell M, Vaclavinkova V. Behavior of moderate cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 609614.
  • 20
    Goldie SJ, Kim J, Moscicki AB. Alternative policies for the initiation of cervical cancer screening. Plenary presentation at the National Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making. San Diego, CA. October 2001. Abstract available: http://www.smdm.org/.
  • 21
    Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 2002; 287: 23722381.
  • 22
    Gustafsson L, Sparén P, Gustafsson M, et al. Low efficiency of cytologic screening for cancer in situ of the cervix in older women. Int J Cancer 1995; 63: 804809.
  • 23
    Van Wijngaarden WJ, Duncan ID. Rationale for stopping cervical screening in women over 50. Br Med J 1993; 306: 967971.
  • 24
    Sigurdsson K. Trends in cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia in Iceland through 1995: Evaluation of targeted age groups and screening intervals. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999; 78: 486492.
  • 25
    Lawson HW, Lee NC, Thames SF, et al. Cervical cancer screening among low-income women: Results of a national screening program 1991–1995. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 745752.
  • 26
    Mandelblatt J, Gopaul I, Wistreich M. Gynecological care of elderly women: Another look at Papanicolaou smear testing. JAMA 1986; 256: 367371.
  • 27
    Sawaya GF, Grady D, Kerlikowske K, et al. The positive predictive value of cervical smears in previously screened postmenopausal women: The Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS). Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 942950.
  • 28
    Sawaya GF, Kerlikowske K, Lee NC, et al. Frequency of cervical smear abnormalities within 3 years of normal cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 219223.
  • 29
    Pearce KF, Haefner HK, Sarwar SF, et al. Cytopathological findings on vaginal Papanicolaou smears after hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 15591562.
  • 30
    Piscitelli JT, Bastian LA, Wilkes A, et al. Cytologic screening after hysterectomy for benign disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173: 424430; discussion 430–432.
  • 31
    Videlefsky A, Grossl N, Denniston M, et al. Routine vaginal cuff smear testing in post-hysterectomy patients with benign uterine conditions: When is it indicated? J Am Board Fam Pract 2000; 13: 233238.
  • 32
    Fox J, Remington P; Layde P, et al. The effect of hysterectomy on the risk of an abnormal screening Papanicolaou test result. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 11041109.
  • 33
    Wiener JJ, Sweetnam PM, Jones JM. Long term follow up of women after hysterectomy with a history of pre-invasive cancer of the cervix. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 907910.
  • 34
    Davey D, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al. ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. J Lower Genital Tract Disease 2002; 6: 195199.
  • 35
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 21142119.
  • 36
    Frame PS, Frame JS. Determinants of cancer screening frequency: The example of screening for cervical cancer. J Am Board Fam Pract 1998; 11: 8795.
  • 37
    Hildesheim A, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. Risk factors for rapid-onset cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 571577.
  • 38
    Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E. Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Br J Cancer 1996; 73: 10011005.
  • 39
    International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group on Evaluation of Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: Duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. Br Med J 293;659–664.
  • 40
    Lynge E, Poll P. Risk of cervical cancer following negative smears in Maribo County Denmark 1966–1982. IARC Sci Publ 1986; 76: 6986.
  • 41
    Sato S, Makino H, Yajima A, et al. Cervical cancer screening in Japan. A case-control study. Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 11031106.
  • 42
    Shy K, Chu J, Mandelson M, et al. Papanicolaou smear screening interval and risk of cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 838843.
  • 43
    Miller M, et al. The protective effect conferred by different Pap smear screening intervals in a health maintenance organization: A case-control study. Obstet Gynecol. In press.
  • 44
    Viikki M, Pukkala E, Hakama M. Risk of cervical cancer after a negative Pap smear. J Med Screen 1999; 6: 103107.
  • 45
    Parazzini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C, et al. Screening practices and invasive cervical cancer risk in different age strata. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 38: 7680.
  • 46
    Sawaya GF, Sung HY, Kinney W, et al. The effect of multiple negative screening Pap smears on cervical cancer risk in longterm members of a prepaid health plan. American Society of Colposcopy & Cervical Pathology March 2002. Oral presentation. Abstract.
  • 47
    Sawaya GF, Sung HY, Kinney, et al. Irreducible cervical cancer risk following multiple negative screening Pap smears in longterm members of a prepaid health plan. American Society of Colposcopy & Cervical Pathology March 2002. Oral presentation. Abstract.
  • 48
    Dominitz JA, Provenzale D. Patient preferences and quality of life associated with colorectal cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol 1997; 92: 21712178.
  • 49
    Lawrence VA, Gafni A, Kroenke K. Evidence-based vs emotion-based medical decision-making: Routine preoperative HIV testing vs universal precautions. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 12331236.
  • 50
    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: 301304.
  • 51
    Marteau TM, Senior V, Sasieni P. Women's understanding of a “normal smear test result”: Experimental questionnaire based study. Br Med J 2001; 322: 526528.
  • 52
    Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002; 287: 23822390.
  • 53
    Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC. Decision analytic modeling to inform US national health policy: New guidelines for cervical screening. Oral presentation at the National SMDM Meeting 2002. Available at http://66.40.168.196/abstracts.htm. Last accessed August 25, 2002.
  • 54
    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: 817821.
  • 55
    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: 278284.
  • 56
    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: 353358.
  • 57
    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: 4855.
  • 58
    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: 439444.
  • 59
    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: 16161623.
  • 60
    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: 709714.
  • 61
    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: 470474.
  • 62
    Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, et al. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 8185.
  • 63
    Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 23: 1922.
  • 64
    Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer 2002; 96: 14.
  • 65
    Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, et al. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002; 287: 21202129.
  • 66
    Cuzick J, Beverley E, Ho L, et al. HPV testing in primary screening of older women. Br J Cancer 1999; 81: 554558.
  • 67
    Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Hybrid Capture II-based human papillomavirus detection, a sensitive test to detect in routine high-grade cervical lesions: A preliminary study on 1518 women. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 13061311.
  • 68
    Belinson J, Qiao Y, Pretorius R, et al. Prevalence of cervical cancer and feasibility of screening in rural China: A pilot study for the Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 1999.;9: 411417.
  • 69
    Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in low- resource settings. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 818825.
  • 70
    Ratnam S, Franco EL, Ferenczy A. Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000; 9: 945951.
  • 71
    Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, et al. HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: Results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA 2000; 283: 8793.
  • 72
    Wright TC Jr, Denny L, Kuhn L, et al. HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA 2000; 283: 8186.
  • 73
    Blumenthal PD, Gaffikin. L, Chirenje ZM, et al. Adjunctive testing for cervical cancer in low resource settings with visual inspection, HPV, and the Pap smear. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 72: 4753.
  • 74
    Sherman ME, Lorincz AT, Scot, et al. Cytopathology and human papillomavirus testing to determine risk for cervical neoplasia: A ten-year cohort analysis of 20,810 women. J Natl Cancer Inst. In Press.
  • 75
    Franco EL, Ferenczy A. Assessing gains in diagnostic utility when human papillomavirus testing is used as an adjunct to papanicolaou smear in the triage of women with cervical cytologic abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 382386.
  • 76
    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: 215219.
  • 77
    Joseph MG, Cragg F, Wright VC, et al. Cyto-histological correlates in a colposcopic clinic: A 1-year prospective study. Diagn Cytopathol 1991; 7: 477481.
  • 78
    Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg KD, Holund B, et al. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytol 1991; 35: 4750.
  • 79
    Van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP. False negative rate in cervical cytology. J Clin Path 1987; 40: 438442.
  • 80
    Rubio C. The false negative smear. II. The trapping effect of collecting instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 49: 576580.
  • 81
    Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G, et al. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999; 354: 17631770.
  • 82
    Alons-van Kordelaar JJM, Boon ME. Diagnostic accuracy of squamous cervical lesions studied in spatula- cytobrush smears. Acta Cytol 1988; 32: 801804.
  • 83
    Chakrabarti S, Guijon FB, Parakevas M. Brush vs spatula for cervical smears: Histologic correlation with concurrent biopsies. Acta Cytol 1994; 84: 168173.
  • 84
    Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 843848.
  • 85
    Pinto M, Waradzin M. Papanicolaou smears prepared using combined cytobrush-spatula sampling. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 705.
  • 86
    Germain M, Heaton R, Erickson, et al. A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 168173.
  • 87
    Partoll L, Javaheri G. Cervical cytology after cryosurgery laser ablation and conization: A comparison of the cotton swab and the endocervical brush. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 876878.
  • 88
    Orr JW, Barrett JM, Orr PJ, et al. The efficacy and safety of the cytobrush during pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol 1992; 44: 260262.