Literature DB >> 15047743

The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996.

S Bulk1, F J Van Kemenade, L Rozendaal, C J L M Meijer.   

Abstract

AIM: To describe the effect of introducing the CISOE-A framework for reporting cervical cytology results, including changes in repeat and referral advice in the Netherlands, on the efficacy of the screening programme. Changes in the distribution of cytological results, the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions, and the detection rate of squamous cervical carcinoma are reported.
METHODS: The results of all gynaecology cytological and histological examinations, as registered in the nationwide database for histopathology and cytopathology (PALGA) from 1990 to 2000, were retrieved from seven laboratories in the greater Amsterdam area.
RESULTS: After the introduction of the CISOE-A classification, cytological results with equivocal diagnoses decreased significantly from 11.3% to 2.6%, without an increase in the percentages of moderate dyskaryosis or worse. During the study period, the detection rate of histologically diagnosed high grade CIN lesions increased significantly from 4.1 to 6.4/1000 smears, whereas there was no change in the detection rates of low grade lesions or invasive cervical cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the new CISOE-A classification system resulted in a substantial decrease of equivocal results and repeat recommendations, without a decrease in the detection rate of high grade lesions, making the screening programme more efficacious.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15047743      PMCID: PMC1770272          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2003.011841

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  13 in total

1.  Cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.

Authors:  M van Ballegooijen; R Hermens
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Changing rates of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix in England.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Adams
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-05-12       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Women who participate in spontaneous screening are not at higher risk for cervical cancer than women who attend programme screening.

Authors:  A B Bos; M van Ballegooijen; G J van Oortmarssen; J D F Habbema
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 4.  2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities.

Authors:  Thomas C Wright; J Thomas Cox; L Stewart Massad; Leo B Twiggs; Edward J Wilkinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-04-24       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology.

Authors:  Diane Solomon; Diane Davey; Robert Kurman; Ann Moriarty; Dennis O'Connor; Marianne Prey; Stephen Raab; Mark Sherman; David Wilbur; Thomas Wright; Nancy Young
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-04-24       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Screening for cervical disease in mature women: strategies for improvement.

Authors:  Terence J Colgan; Aileen Clarke; Natalia Hakh; Allan Seidenfeld
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-08-25       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Criteria for organized cervical screening programs. Special emphasis on The Netherlands program.

Authors:  Antonius G J M Hanselaar
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

8.  Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique.

Authors:  L Gustafsson; H O Adami
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Epidemiological evidence for age-dependent regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer.

Authors:  G J van Oortmarssen; J D Habbema
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Cervical cytology reported as negative and risk of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: no strong evidence of benefit.

Authors:  H Mitchell; G Medley; I Gordon; G Giles
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  33 in total

1.  Cervix smear abnormalities: linking pathology data in female twins, their mothers and sisters.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Vink; Folkert J van Kemenade; Chris J L M Meijer; Mariel K Casparie; Gerrit A Meijer; Dorret I Boomsma
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program.

Authors:  A T Hesselink; N W J Bulkmans; J Berkhof; A T Lorincz; C J L M Meijer; P J F Snijders
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  Comparison of three different PCR methods for quantifying human papillomavirus type 16 DNA in cervical scrape specimens.

Authors:  A T Hesselink; A J C van den Brule; Z M A Groothuismink; M Molano; J Berkhof; C J L M Meijer; P J F Snijders
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervicovaginal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush.

Authors:  Antoinette A T P Brink; Chris J L M Meijer; Maarten A H M Wiegerinck; Thedoor E Nieboer; Roy F P M Kruitwagen; Folkert van Kemenade; Nathalie Fransen Daalmeijer; Albertus T Hesselink; Johannes Berkhof; Peter J F Snijders
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) E6/E7 mRNA testing by PreTect HPV-Proofer for detection of cervical high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer among hrHPV DNA-positive women with normal cytology.

Authors:  D C Rijkaart; D A M Heideman; V M H Coupe; A A T P Brink; R H M Verheijen; H Skomedal; F Karlsen; E Morland; P J F Snijders; C J L M Meijer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Dry storage and transport of a cervicovaginal self-sample by use of the Evalyn Brush, providing reliable human papillomavirus detection combined with comfort for women.

Authors:  Romy van Baars; Remko P Bosgraaf; Bram W A ter Harmsel; Willem J G Melchers; Wim G V Quint; Ruud L M Bekkers
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  HPV testing on self collected cervicovaginal lavage specimens as screening method for women who do not attend cervical screening: cohort study.

Authors:  Murat Gök; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Folkert J van Kemenade; Johannes Berkhof; Lawrence Rozendaal; Johan W M Spruyt; Feja Voorhorst; Jeroen A M Beliën; Milena Babovic; Peter J F Snijders; Chris J L M Meijer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-11

8.  Harms of cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands.

Authors:  Dik Habbema; Sheila Weinmann; Marc Arbyn; Aruna Kamineni; Andrew E Williams; Inge M C M de Kok; Folkert van Kemenade; Terry S Field; Joost van Rosmalen; Martin L Brown
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Comparison of Hybrid capture 2 testing at different thresholds with cytology as primary cervical screening test.

Authors:  D C Rijkaart; V M H Coupe; F J van Kemenade; D A M Heideman; A T Hesselink; W Verweij; L Rozendaal; R H Verheijen; P J Snijders; J Berkhof; C J L M Meijer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  HPV infection in women with and without cervical cancer in Conakry, Guinea.

Authors:  N Keita; G M Clifford; M Koulibaly; K Douno; I Kabba; M Haba; B S Sylla; F J van Kemenade; P J F Snijders; C J L M Meijer; S Franceschi
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.