Microdiagnosis of carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix.A comparative study of pathologists' diagnoses

Siegler, Edward E.

doi:10.1002/1097-0142(195605/06)9:3<463::aid-cncr2820090306>3.0.co;2-8

Cited by 46 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, even if the diagnosis of CIN is believed to be simple and reproducible by most pathologists, in the historic study by Siegler, 18 10 of 20 cases of carcinoma in situ (actually CIN 3 or high-grade SIL [HSIL]) were missed by a group of 25 pathologists. More recent work found higher agreement: Robertson and collaborators 10 found a Cohen κ (the statistic that measures agreement not due to chance 19 ) of 0.46 for HSIL vs less severe than HSIL; Stoler et al 5 found a κ of 0.69; and Park et al 7 and Parker et al 4 found a κ of about 0.8.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Risk of False-Positive Histology According to the Reason for Colposcopy Referral in Cervical Cancer Screening

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) diagnoses identified during the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer trial (ISRCTN81678807) were blindly reviewed by 2 pathologists. Original diagnoses based on colposcopy-guided biopsies were compared with those made by the reviewers who had access to all clinical histologic samples (including postsurgical). Cases downgraded from CIN 2+ by the reviewers were considered indicative of unnecessary treatments. The analyses are presented according to the molecular (high-risk human papillomavirus [HPV]) and/or cytologic diagnosis used to refer the women for colposcopy. We reviewed 812 CIN 1 and 364 CIN 2 + diagnoses. The specificity of colposcopy-guided biopsy was 98% and the sensitivity, 84%. The probability of unnecessary treatment was 27% for women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytologic findings and 8% for women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse, 10% for HPV+ and positive cytologic findings, and 16% for HPV+ alone. The positive predictive value of the first-level screening test was inversely associated with probability of a histologic false-positive result (P = .015). In screening, a low positive predictive value of the colposcopy-referring test may result in unnecessary treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Risk of False-Positive Histology According to the Reason for Colposcopy Referral in Cervical Cancer Screening

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Colposcopy itself is not well standardized 14,15 and the reproducibility of biopsy interpretation might actually be as variable and problematic as cytologic interpretation. 6,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Previous studies on the reproducibility of cervical preneoplasia interpretation have been limited in size and for the most part statistically inadequate.…”

Section: T He Interpretive Reproducibil-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interobserver Reproducibility of Cervical Cytologic and Histologic Interpretations<SUBTITLE>Realistic Estimates From the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study</SUBTITLE>

Stoler

Schiffman²

2001

JAMA

980

489

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…per cc. A total of 67 per cent of the reports were regarded as being beyond the reasonable range of error; 22…”

Section: Laboratory Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and Laboratory Observer Variations

Garland

1961

The Journal of New Drugs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microdiagnosis of carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix.A comparative study of pathologists' diagnoses

Cited by 46 publications

References 2 publications

The Risk of False-Positive Histology According to the Reason for Colposcopy Referral in Cervical Cancer Screening

The Risk of False-Positive Histology According to the Reason for Colposcopy Referral in Cervical Cancer Screening

Interobserver Reproducibility of Cervical Cytologic and Histologic Interpretations<SUBTITLE>Realistic Estimates From the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study</SUBTITLE>

Clinical and Laboratory Observer Variations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About