XV Bibliography

 

Cervical Cytology Practice Guideline

Approved by the ASC Executive Board November 10, 2000
 

 

XV. Bibliography/References

  1. Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Clinical Practice Guideline. Guideline for Clinical Practice – From Development to Use. Field MJ, Lohr KN, (eds.). Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 1992, p 8.
  2. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guideline: Directions for a New Program. Field MJ, Lohr KN, (eds.) Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990, p 39.
  3. American Medical Association, Directory of Clinical Practice Guideline; Titles, Sources, and Updates. Chicago, Ill, 1997.
  4. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer Statistics, 2000, CA Cancer J Clin 2000; 50:7-33.
  5. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J.  Global Cancer Statistics.  CA Cancer J Clin 1999; 49: 33-64A.
  6. Schwartz PE, Hadjimichael O, Lowell DM, Marino MJ, Janerich D. Rapidly progressive cervical cancer: The Connecticut experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 1105-9.
  7. Frame PS, Frame JS.  Determinants of cancer screening frequency: The example of screening for cervical cancer. J Am Board Fam Pract 1998; 11:87-95.
  8. Kenter GG, Schoonderwald EM, Koelma IA, Arenta N, Hermans J, Fleuren GJ. The cytological screening history of 469 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix uteri; does interval carcinoma exist? Acta Obstet Gyn Scand 1996; 75:400-3.
  9. IARC Working Group on Evaluation of Cervical Cancer Screening Programmes. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implications for screening policies.  Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1986; 659-64
  10. Johannesson G, Giersson G, Day N.   The effect of mass screening in Iceland, 1965-74, on the incidence and mortality of cervical carcinoma.  Int J of Cancer 1978; 21:418-425.
  11. Hakama M, Magnus K, Petterssson F, Storm H, Tulinius H.  Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer in the Nordic countries.  In: Miller AB, Chamberlain J, Day NE, Hakama M, Prorock PC (Eds.)  Cancer Screening. UICC Project on Evaluation of Screening for Cancer. Cambridge, UK: International Union Against Cancer; 1999; 153-62.
  12. McCrory DC, Matcher DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, Myers E, Nanda K. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.5. (Prepared by Duke University under contract No. 290-97-0014.) AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010.  Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, February 1999.
  13. NIH Consensus Development Conference statement on cervical cancer. 1-3 April 1996. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 66: 351-61.
  14. Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN.  Epidemiologic evidence that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:958-64.
  15. Stoler MH.  A brief synopsis of the role of human papillomaviruses in cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175:1091-8.
  16. Richart RM, Masood S, Syrjanen KJ, Vassilakos P, Kaufman RH, Meisels A, Olszewski WT, Sakamoto A, Stoler MH, Vooijs GP, Wilbur DC.  Human Papillomavirus; IAC Task Force Summary. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:50-58.
  17. Stoler MH.  Human papillomavirus and cervical neoplasia: a model for carcinogenesis.  Int J Gynecol Pathol 2000; 19:16-28.
  18. Maiman M. Cervical neoplasia in women with HIV infection. Oncol 1994; 83-87.
  19. Palefsky JM, Minckoff H, Kalish LA, Levine A, Sacks HS, Garcia P, Young M, Melnick S, Miotti P, Burk R.  Cervicovaginal human papillomavirus infection in immunodeficiency virus –1(HIV)-positive and high-risk HIV-negative women.  J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91:226-236.
  20. Ho GY, Burk RD, Fleming I, Klein RS.  Risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in women with human immunodeficiency virus-induced immunosuppression. Int J Cancer 1994; 56:788-92.
  21. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Diebold J, et. al.  The world health organization classification of hematological malignancies report of the clinical advisory committee meeting, Airlie House, Virginia, November 1997.  Mod Path 2000; 13:193-207.
  22. Schneider V, Kay S, Lee HM.  Immunosuppression as a high-risk factor in the development of condyloma accuminatum and squamous neoplasia of the cervix.  Acta Cytol 1983; 27:220-4.
  23. National Cancer Institute. ALTS: the ASCUS/LSIL triage study.  Alternatives in Women’s Health Care Newsletter, 1:1.  Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 1996.
  24. Invasive squamous cell cervical carcinoma and combined oral contraceptives: results from a multinational study.  WHO Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraceptives.  Int J Cancer1993: 55:228-36.
  25. Parazzini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C, Fedele L. Barrier methods of contraception and risk of cervical neoplasia. Contraception 1989; 40:519-30.
  26. Brinton LA, Huggins GR, Lehman HF, Mallin K, Savitz DA, Trapido E, Rosenthal J, Hoover R. Long term use of oral contraceptives and risk of invasive cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 1986; 38:339-44.
  27. Eddy, David M. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Int Med 1990; 113:214-226.
  28. Ho GY, Kadish, AS, Burk RD, Basu J, Palan PR, Milehail M, Romney SL. HPV 16 and cigarette smoking as risk factors for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Ca 1998; 8:281-285.
  29. Paskett ED, Rushing J, D’Agostino R Jr, Tatum C, Velez R. Cancer screening behaviors of low-income women: The impact of race. Women’s Health 1997; 3:203-26.
  30. Brown CL.  Screening patterns for cervical cancer: How best to reach the unscreened population. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 21:7-11.
  31. 1994 National Health Interview Survey public use data (James Cucinelli, programmer.)
  32. Martin LM, Calle EE, Wingo PA, Heath CW Jr.  Comparison of mammography and Pap test use from the 1987 and 1982 National Health Interview Surveys: Are we closing the gaps?  Am J Prev Med 1996; 12:82-90.
  33. Chao A, Becker TM, Jordan SW, Darling R, Gilliland FD, Key CR. Decreasing rates of cervical cancer among American Indians and Hispanics in New Mexico. Cancer Causes Control 1996; 7:205-13.
  34. US Preventive Services Task Force.  Guide to clinical preventive services: report of the US Preventive Services Task Force (2nd ed.). Baltimore: William and Wilkins, 1996.
  35. American Cancer Society Facts and Figures-1999. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society.
  36. Recommendations on frequency of Pap test screening.  Committee on Gynecologic Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995; 49:210-1.
  37. Eddy DM (ed.). Common screening tests. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1992.
  38. College of American Pathologists Policy and Procedure Manual, Northfield, IL, revised August 1997.
  39. McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I et al.  Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC Task Force Summary. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:25-32.
  40. Vooijs GP, Elias A, Van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M.  The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986; 35:251-257.
  41. Thompson D.  Adequate “Pap” Smears: A guide for sampling techniques in screening for abnormalities of the uterine cervix.  Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program of Canada, 1989.
  42. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.  Web site: http:\www.cancer.org
  43. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule.  Federal Register.  Feb. 28, 1992; Vol. 57:  493.1105.
  44. NCCLS.  Papanicolaou Technique; Approved Guideline.  NCCLS Document 15-A (ISBN 1-56238-238-1) Villanova, Pennsylvania:  NCCLS; 1994; 14:  no. 8.
  45. Rubio CA.  The false negative smear. Obstet and Gynecol 97; 49:576-580. 
  46. Boon ME, Guilloud JC, Rietverd WJ.  Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears.  Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 843-848.
  47. Luzzatto R, Boon ME.  Contribution of the endocervical cytobrush sample to the diagnosis of cervical lesions.  Acta Cytol 1996; 40:1143-1147.
  48. Cytyc Corporation, 85 Swanson Road, Boxborough, Massachusetts, 01719
  49. TriPath Imaging, Inc. 700 Plantation Drive, Burlington, North Carolina, 27215
  50. Somrak TM, Sorensen K, Abdul-Karim F.  Pap smear: Collection, handling and quality assurance.   Chicago: ASCP Press; 1990.
  51. Saitas VL, Hawthorne C, Cater J, Bibbo M.  Single slide versus double slide: A comparative study. Diagn Cytopathol 1995; 12:317-320.
  52. Quakenbush S R. Single slide Pap smear: An acceptable alternative to the double-slide Pap smear.  Diagn Cytopathol 1999:20:317-320.
  53. Triol JH (ed.), ASCT Cytopathology Quality Assurance Guide, Vols. I and II.  Raleigh, NC: American Society for Cytotechnology; 1992.
  54. Bales CE, Durfee GR.  “Cytologic Techniques.”  In:  Koss LG (Ed), Diagnostic Cytology and its Histologic Basis (4th ed).  Philadelphia:  JB Lippincott Co.; 1992.
  55. Boon ME. Routine cytologic staining procedures. In: Weid GL, Keebler CM, Koss LG, Reagan JW (eds.), Compendium on Diagnostic Cytology (6th ed).  Chicago:  Tutorials of Cytology; 1992.
  56. Keebler CM.  “Cytopreparatory Techniques.”  In:  Bibbo M (9th ed.) comprehensive Cytopathology, Philadelphia: W.B. Sauders Co.; 1991.
  57. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule.  Federal Register.  Feb. 28, 1992; Vol. 57: 493.1101.
  58. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  Occupational exposure to blood borne pathogens.  Federal Register Final Rules-Title 29. 1991; 56 (235), ammended 1996; 60(30).
  59. Homquist MD, Keebler CM.  “Cytopreparatory Techniques.”  In: Keebler CM, Somrak TM (eds.) The Manual of Cytotechnology (7th ed.). Chicago:  ASCP Press; 1993.
  60. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28 1992; 57: 493.1257(a)(2)(3).
  61. College of American Pathologists. Commission on Laboratory Accreditation Inspection Checklist 2000 edition, Cytopathology, Section 8A, Northfield, Illinois.
  62. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  Occupational Exposures to Chemicals in Laboratories.  Laboratory Standard; Federal Register Final Rules-Title 29.1910.1450.  1990.
  63. American Society Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959. Web site: http://www.astm.org
  64. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28 1992; 57: 493.1204(a) and (b).
  65. Carriere C. “The cytotechnologist and the workplace.” In Keebler CM, Somrak TM (Eds.) The Manual of Cytotechnology (7th ed.). Chicago:  ASCP Press; 1993.
  66. Patten FW. “Organization of the Laboratory.” In: Wied GL, Keebler CM, Koss LG, Reagan JW (Eds.) Compendium on Diagnostic Cytology (6th ed.). Chicago:  Tutorials of Cytology; 1990.
  67. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register.   Feb. 28 1992; 57: 493.1483.
  68. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1451(c).
  69. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register.  Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257(b).
  70. Laming D. The human element in medical screening. J Med Screening 1995; 2:52-55.
  71. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, Stastny J, Mody D. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: Current Laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in cervicovaginal cytology.  Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:203-211.
  72. Jones BA, Davey DD.  Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison.  Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124: 672-681.
  73. Jones BA, Novis DA.  Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22 439 correlations in 348 laboratories.  Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996; 120:523-531.
  74. Schenk U, Reuter B, Vohringer P. Investigation of the visual cytoscreening of conventional gynecologic smears. I. Analysis of slide movement. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1986; 8:35-45.
  75. Krieger PA.  Strategies for reducing Papanicolaou smear screening errors.  Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997; 121: 277-81.
  76. Practice Guidelines. Workload Guidelines for Cytotechnologists. A Publication of the College of Medical LaboratoryTechnologists of Ontario. September 1998.
  77. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal ctyologic diagnoses: Definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York, NY:  Springer-Verlag; 1994.
  78. College of American Pathologists, 325 Waukegan Road, Northfield, Illinois 60093-2750   Web site http://www.cap.org.
  79. Joint Commision on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, One Renaissance Boulevard, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181. Web site http://www.jcaho.org
  80. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Rosenstock W, Kline TS. Terminology and specimen adequacy in cervicovaginal cytology:  The CAP interlaboratory comparison program experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992; 116:903-907.
  81. Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, et al. Interim Guideline for management of abnormal cervical cytology. JAMA 1994; 271:1866-1869.
  82. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Cervical cytology evaluation and management of abnormalities.  Washington, D.C.: AGOG Technical Bulletin no. 183, 1993.
  83. Cox JT, ASCCP practice guidelines: management issues related to quality of the smear. J Lower Genital Tract Disease 1997; 2:100-106.
  84. Robb JA.  The “ASCUS” swamp Diagn Cytopathol 1994; 11: 319-320.
  85. Barr Soofer S, Sidawy M.  Reactive cellular change. Cancer Cytopathology 1997; 81: 144-147.
  86. Cox JT, ASCCP practice guidelines: the follow-up system for abnormal cervical cytological findings. J Lower Genital Tract Disease 1997; 1:167-170.
  87. Cox JT, ASCCP practice guidelines: management guidelines for follow-up of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS.) J Lower Genital Tract Disease 2000; 4:99-105.
  88. Cox JT, ASCCP practice guidelines: management of glandular abnormalities in the cervical smear. J Lower Genital Tract Disease 1997; 1:41-45.
  89. Jones BA, Novis DA.  Follow up of abnormal gynecologic cytology:  A College of American Pathology Q-Probes study of 16,132 cases from 306 laboratories. Arch Pathol and Lab Med 2000; 124: 665-671.
  90. Stastny JF, Remmers RE, Sondon WB, et al. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a comparative review of original and automated rescreen diagnosis of cervicovaginal smears with long term follow-up. Cancer Cytopathol 1997; 81:348-353.
  91. Raab SS, Bishop NS, Zaleski MS. Long-term outcome and relative risk in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:57-62.
  92. Godfrey SE.  Special article – The Pap smear, automated rescreening, and negligent nondisclosure. Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 111:14-17.
  93. Gatter K. Letter to the editor – The standard of care in cytopathology.  Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:273-274.
  94. McCoy DR, Sidoti M. Letter to the editor – The Pap smear liability crisis.  Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:274-279.
  95. Godfrey SE.  Letter to the editor – The author’s reply.  Am J Clin Pathol 1999; 112:279-280. 
  96. Bierig J, Weber S. Pap smear liability: Do computer-assisted rescreening devices affect the standard of care? CAP Today  1997; 11:32-34.
  97. Bierig J. Pap smear liability. CAP Today 1997; 11:14-20.
  98. Quality Improvement Manual in Anatomic Pathology. Chicago: College of American Pathologists; 1993.
  99. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257.
  100. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1202 (c) (3).
  101. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257(e)(2).
  102. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register.  Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257(d)(1)(i).
  103. Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE, Sattich M, Banks H, Cibull ML, Davey DD. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 1995; 103:594-7.
  104. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257(d)(3).
  105. Renshaw AA. Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: the need to review abnormal cases.  Cancer Cytopathol 1997; 81:264-71.
  106. Nagy GK. False negative rate – a misnomer, misunderstood and misused. Acta Cytol 1997; 41:778-780.
  107. Krieger PA, Naryshkin S. Random rescreening of cytologic smears: A practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1994; 38:291-8.
  108. Krieger PA, Cohen T, Naryshkin S.  A practical guide to Papanicolaou smear rescreens. Cancer Cytopathol 1998; 84:130-137.
  109. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ.  The AutoPap System for Primary Screening in cervical cytology.  Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 214-220.
  110. Koss LG. Cervical (Pap) smears. New directions.  Cancer Suplement 1993; 71:1406-1412.
  111. DeMay RM. The Pap Smear.  In:  The Art and Science of Cytopathology. Chicago: ASCP Press. 1996; 143-147.
  112. Raab SS. Can glandular lesions be diagnosed in Pap smear cytology? Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 23:127-133.
  113. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.945.
  114. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257(g).
  115. Buffone GJ, Moreau D, Beck JR. Workflow computing.  Improving management and efficiency of pathology diagnostic services. Am J Clin Pathol 1996; 105:S17-24.
  116. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1703(f).
  117. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1257(d)(5).
  118. AutoCyte PREP System™ Package Insert, TriPath Imaging, Inc., Burlington, North Carolina.
  119. ThinPrep® 2000 System Package Insert. Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, Massachusetts.
  120. AutoPap® Primary Screening System. TriPath Imaging, Inc., Burlington, North Carolina.
  121. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, Sherman ME, Shieh-Ngai J, Kurman RJ, Ransley JE, Fetterman BJ, Hartinger JS, McIntosh KM, Pawlick GF, Hiatt RA. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: Using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results.  JAMA 1999; 281:1645-7.
  122. Smith BL, Lee M, Leader S, Wertlake P.  Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical cancer. J Reprod Med 1999; 44:518-528.
  123. Hutchinson ML, Berger BM, Farber FL.  Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: the impact of test sensitivity.  Am J Managed Care 2000; 6:766-780.
  124. Raab SS, Zaleski MS, Silverman JF. The cost-effectiveness of the cytology laboratory and new cytology technologies in cervical cancer prevention. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999; 111:259-266.
  125. Appendix C-Survey Procedures and Interpretive Guideline for Laboratories and Laboratory Services.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services. Health Care Financing Administration; 1993; 1-296.
  126. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 493.1107.
  127. American Medical Association Statement to the Health Care Financing  Administration Re: Inherent reasonableness review of payment rates for Pap smears, February 18, 1999.
  128. Luff RD. Summary of HCFA Meeting, 18 February 1999 (Submitted to ASC Executive Board Meeting April 1999.)
  129. Spires S. The penurious Pap smear: Will we ever see payment reflect costs?Diag Cytopathol 1998; 19: 81-83.
  130. Luff RD. Dodging the bullets of cost containment and productivity. ASC Cytopathology Review. 1999 April, Columbus, Ohio.
  131. Stombler RE. ASCP testifies on Pap smears before Congressional subcommittee. Lab Med 1993; 30: 301.
  132. Graziano C.  Reckoning the cost of Pap tests. CAP Today 1999; 13(6): 56-7.
  133. Survey and Methodology for determining conventional Pap smear costs.  ASC Bulletin, August 1999; 36:79-83.
  134. Graziano C.  At last, higher pay for Pap tests. CAP Today 1999; 13(12):1.
  135. Brown AD, and Garber AM. The cost effectiveness of three new technologies to enhance Pap testing. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Assessment Program Special Assessment, April 1998.
  136. Brown AD, and Garber AM. Cost effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 1999; 281: 347-353.
  137. Bierig JR, Hirshfeld EB, Kelley JT, Raskin RD.  Practice parameters: Malpractice liability considerations for physicians.  Legal Med 1991; 207-225.
  138. Shaneyfelt  TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer reviewed medical literature. JAMA 1999; 281:1900-1905.
  139. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988; Final Rule. Federal Register. Feb. 28, 1992; 57: 7001-7243.