 |
|
Implications of Low Diagnostic Reproducibility of Cervical Cytologic and Histologic Diagnoses
Suzanne M. Selvaggi, MD
JAMA. 2001;285:1506-1508.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Since its introduction by Papanicolaou in 19431 cytologic examination of cervical smears has led to early detection of cervical carcinoma and its precursors, with a reduction in both morbidity and mortality. And even though Koss has suggested that the cervical smear was perhaps the only effective cancer screening test,2 screening for cervical cancer has not eliminated the disease in any population studied. Reported estimates of the false-negative rate have ranged from 6% to 50% of all cervicovaginal samples.2-3 Three major sources of error include variability among clinicians obtaining the sample and the area of the cervix sampled; the cell collection and preparation techniques used; and errors in interpretation, with lack of diagnostic reproducibility for some cervical abnormalities.
Detection and interpretation of cervical abnormalities depend on the methods used to obtain and prepare the sample. Sampling factors account for the majority of false-negative results.4 Cellular material must . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Author Affiliation: Department of Pathology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.
RELATED ARTICLE
Interobserver Reproducibility of Cervical Cytologic and Histologic Interpretations: Realistic Estimates From the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study
Mark H. Stoler, Mark Schiffman, and for the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance–Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study Group
JAMA. 2001;285(11):1500-1505.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Prevention of Cervical Cancer Through Vaccination of Adolescents
Pichichero
CLIN PEDIATR 2006;45:393-398.
|
