Comparative sensitivities of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smear for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and combined AIS/high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL): Comparison with HSIL

Despite the historic belief that cytologic screening offers little protection against cervical adenocarcinoma (CAC), there is emerging evidence that, by detecting the precursor lesion, adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), cervical screening may reduce the incidence of CAC as it has for cervical squamous carcinoma. Because liquid‐based cytology is fast replacing the conventional Papanicolaou smear (PS), it is important to establish that it is at least as effective in detecting AIS.

[1]  J. Roberts,et al.  Follow-up of Cytologic Predictions of Endocervical Glandular Abnormalities: Histologic Outcomes in 123 Cases , 2005, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[2]  M. Saville,et al.  Cervical Cytology Screening History of Women Diagnosed with Adenocarcinoma in Situ of the Cervix , 2004, Acta Cytologica.

[3]  S. Raab.  Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in pap smear cytology? , 2000, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[4]  F. Abdul-Karim,et al.  Histologic Follow-up of Atypical Endocervical Cells , 2002, Acta Cytologica.

[5]  K. Syrjänen.  Is Improved Detection of Adenocarcinoma in Situ by Screening a Key to Reducing the Incidence of Cervical Adenocarcinoma? , 2004, Acta Cytologica.

[6]  R. Ramsaroop,et al.  Accuracy of diagnosis of atypical glandular cells—Conventional and ThinPrep , 2006, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[7]  H. 0. Smith,et al.  Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: Sensitivity of detection by cervical smear , 2002, Cancer.

[8]  F. Smedts,et al.  Severe cervical glandular cell lesions with coexisting squamous cell lesions , 2004, Cancer.

[9]  P. Sasieni,et al.  Changing rates of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix in England , 2001, The Lancet.

[10]  C. Sung,et al.  ThinPrep® pap test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix , 1999, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[11]  A. Farnsworth,et al.  The Reliability of a Cytological Prediction of Cervical Adenocarcinoma In Situ , 1988, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[12]  A. Hanselaar,et al.  Liquid‐based cervical cytology , 2003, Cancer.

[13]  J. Brewer,et al.  Comparative cytologic findings of in situ and invasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix , 1995, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[14]  J. Hecht,et al.  Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin‐layer preparations , 2002, Cancer.

[15]  R. Hiatt,et al.  Stage at Diagnosis and Mortality in Patients with Adenocarcinoma and Adenosquamous Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix Diagnosed as a Consequence of Cytologic Screening , 2003, Acta Cytologica.

[16]  G. Sterrett,et al.  Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix , 2002, Cancer.

[17]  J. Roberts,et al.  Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap Smear in Relation to Prediction of Adenocarcinoma in Situ , 1999, Acta Cytologica.

[18]  G. Friedell,et al.  Adenocarcinoma in situ of the endocervix , 1953, Cancer.

[19]  M. Sherman,et al.  Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976–2000 , 2004, Cancer.

[20]  L. Irwig,et al.  Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review , 2006, The Lancet.

[21]  Y Mao,et al.  Cervical cancer in Canada: Changing patterns in incidence and mortality , 2000, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[22]  G. Pinkus,et al.  WT1, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor as markers for breast or ovarian primary sites in metastatic adenocarcinoma to body fluids. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[23]  J. Schorge,et al.  Cytologic and Biopsy Findings Leading to Conization in Adenocarcinoma In Situ of the Cervix , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  S. Mount,et al.  Significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance on ThinPrep Papanicolaou smears. , 2000, Gynecologic oncology.

[25]  M. Sherman,et al.  Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Interobserver reproducibility in cervical smears and corresponding thin-layer preparations. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  K. Syrjänen,et al.  Factors predicting disease outcome in early stage adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. , 2002, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[27]  J. Roberts,et al.  Subdividing atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance according to the Australian modified Bethesda system , 2000, Cancer.

[28]  S J Bernstein,et al.  Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. , 2001, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[29]  S. Granter,et al.  Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases. , 1997, American journal of clinical pathology.

[30]  R. Ashfaq,et al.  ThinPrep detection of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinoma , 2002, Cancer.

[31]  V. Moreno,et al.  International trends in the incidence of cervical cancer: I. Adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous cell carcinomas , 1998, International journal of cancer.

[32]  S. Fleisher,et al.  Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): Clinical considerations and cytohistologic correlation , 2002, Diagnostic cytopathology.