2003
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11673
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Liquid-based cervical cytology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

1
50
0
3

Year Published

2003
2003
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
50
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Earlier publications found an increased detection rate of HSIL as summarized in several reviews. [5][6][7] More recently, some HTAs and systematic reviews 8,11,12 using stringent criteria did not show superiority of LBC over CC. Additionally, two recent large randomized studies, which were situated within organized screening programs did not observe a higher relative sensitivity of LBC for histologically confirmed CIN compared with CC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Earlier publications found an increased detection rate of HSIL as summarized in several reviews. [5][6][7] More recently, some HTAs and systematic reviews 8,11,12 using stringent criteria did not show superiority of LBC over CC. Additionally, two recent large randomized studies, which were situated within organized screening programs did not observe a higher relative sensitivity of LBC for histologically confirmed CIN compared with CC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite numerous scientific studies, the debate on the superiority of LBC over CC is still ongoing. [5][6][7] Health technology assessments (HTA) and meta-analysis reviews as well as two recent, large randomized trials which were conducted in the context of organized screening programs did not find a higher sensitivity of LBC for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and higher (CIN2þ). [8][9][10][11][12] LBC has advantages such as faster reading of slides, fewer unsatisfactory specimens, and the possibility to use residual liquid sample for testing of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and other molecular markers.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, in a 2001 review of new cervical cytology methods for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, none of the 962 potentially relevant articles met the predefined inclusion criteria. 25 The overwhelming reason for exclusion in this review and several other recent reviews [22][23][24] was the lack of an adequate reference standard such as colposcopy/histology. For example, in lieu of colposcopy/histology, LBC comparison studies often use what is known as the ''expert panel'' review of selected cytology specimens and, instead of relating test findings to the true disease status of the cervix, compare abnormal rates (e.g., the proportion with LSIL or higher) as a proxy to comparisons of test sensitivity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5,6 High quality cervical screening can contribute to a reduction in the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer. 19 The results of this study suggests that HPV 16, 18 DNA test is less sensitive than Pap smear in early detection of pre-invasive disease of the cervix, and the cytology is primary to HPV DNA as a screening method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%