Literature DB >> 10983723

Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Second edition including revised performance indicators.

E J Johnson, J Patnick.   

Abstract

Endocervical cells are not essential for an adequate smear, except where the previous abnormality was seen in endocervical cells. When three consecutive smears are reported as inadequate, the recommendation for colposcopy should be made at the discretion of the pathologist in the light of a review of the relevant slides and the clinical history of the woman concerned. The cellularity of previous sequential smears should not be combined in order to judge the present smear test as negative. There should be no more than three abnormal smears (including borderline) over any 10-year period without a recommendation for colposcopy. At least three negative smears, at least 6 months apart, should be reported before a woman is returned to routine recall following a smear showing mild dyskaryosis or borderline nuclear change. There is no evidence that demonstrates that selective double screening is any more effective in preventing false-negatives than rapid review and this practice cannot therefore be justified. Sensitivity should be based on all abnormalities detected on primary screening rather than on moderate dyskaryosis or worse. Ranges for reporting rates are based on the 10-90th percentiles of the range for laboratories reporting over 10000 screening smears per year in KC61 returns, but apply to all laboratories reporting screening smears.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10983723     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2000.00269.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cytopathology        ISSN: 0956-5507            Impact factor:   2.073


  7 in total

Review 1.  Simple vaginal trachelectomy as a fertility-sparing treatment to manage high-grade dyskaryosis following multiple large loop excision of the transformation zone.

Authors:  Claire Grace Scrivener; Robert Gornall; Philip Rolland
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-06-28

2.  [Reevaluation of cytological smears in patients with cervical cancer. Regional quality assurance program with the cooperation of the Austrian Society for Cytology, the Carinthian Medical Association and the Carinthian Ministry of Health].

Authors:  P Regitnig; H P Dinges; E Ropp; H Fladerer; F Moinfar; G Breitenecker
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Human papillomavirus infection and anxiety: analyses in women with low-grade cervical cytological abnormalities unaware of their infection status.

Authors:  Candice Y Johnson; Linda Sharp; Seonaidh C Cotton; Cheryl A Harris; Nicola M Gray; Julian Little
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The impact of the introduction of liquid based cytology on the variation in the proportion of inadequate samples between GP practices.

Authors:  Wayne N Harrison; Alison M J Teale; Suzanne P Jones; Mohammed A Mohammed
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Analysis of inadequate cervical smears using Shewhart control charts.

Authors:  Wayne N Harrison; Mohammed A Mohammed; Michael K Wall; Tom P Marshall
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2004-06-29       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  MCM immunocytochemistry as a first line cervical screening test in developing countries: a prospective cohort study in a regional cancer centre in India.

Authors:  G Mukherjee; B Muralidhar; U D Bafna; R A Laskey; N Coleman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2007-03-06       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Adams; J Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-07-07       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.