16Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGo<strong>og</strong>an E, Brewer N. Liquid-based cytol<strong>og</strong>y in cervical <strong>screening</strong>: an updatedrapid and systematic review and economic analysis. HTA (Health Technol<strong>og</strong>y Assessment NHS R&D HTA Pr<strong>og</strong>ramme).England. Maj 2004.17Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytol<strong>og</strong>y <strong>for</strong>cervical <strong>screening</strong>. Technol<strong>og</strong>ical Appraisal 69. October 2003.London:2003.18Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>ic smear study and conventional Papanicolaousmears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytol<strong>og</strong>ic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J ObstetGynecol 2001; 185:308-317.19Stein SR. ThinPrep versus the conventional Papanicolaou test: A review of specimen adequacy, sensitivity, and costeffectiveness.Prim Care Update Ob/Gyns 2003; 10:310-331.20Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in<strong>screening</strong> <strong>for</strong> and follow-up of cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>ic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:810-819.21Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technol<strong>og</strong>ic advances <strong>for</strong> evaluation of cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y: Is newer better? ObstetGynecol Surv 2001; 56:765-774.22Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, Brown JL, Becker LA, Grant WD. Are fluid-based cytol<strong>og</strong>ies superior to the conventionalPapanicolaou test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract 2001; 50:1040-1046.23Moseley RP, Paget S. Liquid-based cytol<strong>og</strong>y: is this the way <strong>for</strong>ward <strong>for</strong> cervical <strong>screening</strong>? Cytopathol<strong>og</strong>y 2002; 13:71-82.24Abulfia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Per<strong>for</strong>mance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y in comparison with conventionallyprepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003; 90:137-144.25Klinkhamer PJJM, Meerding WJ, Rosier, PFWM, Hanselaar, AGJM. Liquid-based cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y. A review of the literaturewith methods of evidence-based medicine. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol<strong>og</strong>y) 2003; 99(5):263-271.26Bergeron C, Fagnani F. Per<strong>for</strong>mance of a new, liquid-based cervical <strong>screening</strong> technique in the clinical setting of a largefrench laboratory. Acta Cytol 2003; 47:753-761.27Weynand B, Berlière M, Haumont CT, Massart F, Pourvoyeur A, Bernard P, Donnez J, Galant C. A new, liquid-basedcytol<strong>og</strong>y technique. Acta Cytol 2003; 47:149-153.28Ferraz MdGM, Nicolau SM, Stávale JN, Focchi J, Castelo A, Dores GB, Mielzynska-Lohnas I, Lorincz A, de Lima GR. Cervicalbiopsy-based comparison of a new liquid-based thin-layer preparation with conventional Pap smears. Diag Cytopathol2004; 30:220-226.29Utagawa ML, Pereira SMM, Makabe S, Maeda MYS, Marques JA, Santoro CLF, Loreto CD, Aguiar LS, Pitolli JE, Dores GBD,Castelo A, Pilho AL. Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytol<strong>og</strong>y. Diag Cytopathol2004; 31:169-172.30Bishop JW. Comparison of the cytorich system with conventional cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y. Preliminary data on 2.032 cases froma clinical trial site. Acta Cytol 1997; 41:15-23.31Sherman ES, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, Herrero R, Hutchinson ML, Bratti C, Zahniser D, Morales J, Hildesheim A, HelgesenK, Kelly D, Alfaro M, Mena F, Balmaceda I, Mango L, Greenberg M. Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer aresuitable <strong>for</strong> both cytol<strong>og</strong>ic <strong>screening</strong> and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol<strong>og</strong>y) 1997;81:89-97.Væskebaseret <strong>teknik</strong> <strong>og</strong> udstrygnings<strong>teknik</strong> <strong>anvendt</strong> <strong>til</strong> <strong>screening</strong> <strong>for</strong> livmoderhalskræft i Danmark 41
32Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, Husain M, Howell LP, McIntosh KM, Taylor DA, Sadeghi MH. Multicenter maskedevacuation of autocyte prep thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol 1998;42:189-197.33Vassilakos P, Griffin S, Megavand E, Campana A. Cytorich liquid-based cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>ic test. Screening results in aroutine cytopathol<strong>og</strong>y service. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:198-202.34Hoelund B. Implementation of liquid-based cytol<strong>og</strong>y in the <strong>screening</strong> pr<strong>og</strong>ramme against cervical cancer in the countyof Funen, Denmark and the status of the first year. Cytopathol<strong>og</strong>y 2003; 14:269-274.35Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC. Conventional cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>ic smears vs. ThinPrepsmears. A paired comparison study on cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:1136-1142.36Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, Fox W, Heinzerling R, Geyer JW, Knesel EA. The false negative rate in cervicalcytol<strong>og</strong>y. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:81-89.37Inhorn SL, Wilbur D, Zahniser D, Linder J. Validation of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test <strong>for</strong> cervical cancer diagnosis. JLow Genit Tract Dis 1998; 2:208-212.38Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep pap test. Accuracy <strong>for</strong> glandular disease. Acta Cytol 1999;43:81-85.39Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Humcevic J, Laverty CRA. Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap smear in relation toprediction of adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol 1999; 43:74-80.40Wang TY, Chen HS, Yang YC, Tsou MC. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaoumethods <strong>for</strong> uterine cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y. J Formos Med Assoc 1999; 98:500-505.41Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. DiagCytopathol 2000; 23:19-24.42Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Detection of endometrial adenocarcinoma with the ThinPrep Pap test. Diag Cytopathol 2000;23:260-265.43Anton RC, Ramzy I, Schwartz MR, Younes P, Chakraborty S, Mody DR. Should the cytol<strong>og</strong>ic diagnosis of »atypicalsquamous cells of undertermined significans« be qualified? An assessment including comparison between conventional andliquid-based technol<strong>og</strong>ies. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2001; 93:93-99.44Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A, Cas F, Ayivi J, Huynh B, Barrasso R. Accuracy of thin-layer cytol<strong>og</strong>y in patients undergoingcervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol 2001; 45:519-524.45Park IA, Lee SN, Chae SW, Park KH, Kim JW, Lee HP. Comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep Pap tests and conventionalPapanicolaou smears on the basis of the histol<strong>og</strong>ic diagnosis. A clinical study of women with cervical abnormalities.Acta Cytol 2001; 45:525-531.46Con<strong>for</strong>tini M, Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Carozzi FM, Cecchini S, Cipparrone I, Maddau C, Rossi R, Troni GM, Zappa M,Ciatto S. Conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cervical cytol<strong>og</strong>y smear: comparison from the same patient. Tumori2002; 88:288-290.47Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B. Significance of atypia in conventional Papanicolaou smears and liquid-basedcytol<strong>og</strong>y: a follow-up study. Cytopathol<strong>og</strong>y 2004; 15:148-153.Væskebaseret <strong>teknik</strong> <strong>og</strong> udstrygnings<strong>teknik</strong> <strong>anvendt</strong> <strong>til</strong> <strong>screening</strong> <strong>for</strong> livmoderhalskræft i Danmark 42
- Page 1 and 2: VÆSKEBASERET TEKNIK OG UDSTRYGNING
- Page 3 and 4: ForordForebyggende undersøgelser m
- Page 5 and 6: 5 Organisation 585.1 Indledning 585
- Page 7 and 8: herunder relateret til automatisere
- Page 9 and 10: SummaryConclusionsMain conclusions:
- Page 11 and 12: equate tests may be reduced. Conver
- Page 13 and 14: OrdlisteASCUS - atypical squamous c
- Page 15 and 16: PrepStain - produktnavn: system, de
- Page 17 and 18: 2003. Her fremkom de amerikanske og
- Page 19 and 20: Til udarbejdelse af rapporten er ne
- Page 21 and 22: 2 Teknologi2.1 Beskrivelse af tekno
- Page 23 and 24: ne i et screeningsprogram mod livmo
- Page 25 and 26: HHKvinder i samme population får p
- Page 27 and 28: hvilke celleprøver, der skal kalde
- Page 29 and 30: Rapporten gennemgik litteraturen fo
- Page 31 and 32: K. Nanda et al. 2000 (USA) (20)UST,
- Page 33 and 34: Konklusion af reviewartiklerI fem u
- Page 35 and 36: M. Fremont-Smith et al. 2004 (USA)
- Page 37 and 38: verificeres, giver en bias til ford
- Page 39: HHHDer er ikke videnskabeligt belæ
- Page 43 and 44: 65Yeoh GPS, Chan KW, Lauder I, Lam
- Page 45 and 46: 3 Patientperspektivet3.1 Indledning
- Page 47 and 48: 4 Økonomi4.1 IndledningTidligere
- Page 49 and 50: TABEL 4.2Gennemsnitlige omkostninge
- Page 51 and 52: eløb som dækkende, er der en merp
- Page 53 and 54: TABEL 4.6Omkostninger, som er uafh
- Page 55 and 56: implementering af VBT frem for UST,
- Page 57 and 58: 5 Organisation5.1 IndledningI Danma
- Page 59 and 60: Deltagerprocenten varierer fra 49%
- Page 61 and 62: Forhold vedrørende cytobioanalytik
- Page 63 and 64: EgnethedskriterierTABEL 5.6Anvendte
- Page 65 and 66: Undersøgelse af celleprøver fra l
- Page 67 and 68: amter i forhold til at reducere and
- Page 69 and 70: 2Seminar om screening for livmoderh
- Page 71 and 72: Ved beslutning om anvendelse af UST
- Page 73 and 74: 7 BilagBilag 1 - TidsstudieBilag 2
- Page 75 and 76: IndledningBaggrund for projektetDen
- Page 77 and 78: Arbejdsgange og aktiviteterCellemat
- Page 79 and 80: ÅrhusTidsstudiet fandt sted i uge
- Page 81 and 82: er der forskellig praksis med hensy
- Page 83 and 84: BILAG1-TABEL 5Minutter per cellepr
- Page 85 and 86: af præparatet (15). Da UST er mere
- Page 87 and 88: 14Cheung ANY, Szeto EF, Leung BS, K
- Page 89 and 90: Bilag 2 - Supplerende baggrundsmate
- Page 91 and 92:
OR test OR tests OR prevention OR c
- Page 93 and 94:
Væskebaseret teknik og udstrygning
- Page 95 and 96:
Væskebaseret teknik og udstrygning
- Page 97 and 98:
Bilag 2.2 Bilag vedr. kapitel 4-Øk
- Page 99 and 100:
Bilag 2.2.3 Incidens af livmoderhal
- Page 101 and 102:
PræscreeningsforløbI det følgend
- Page 103 and 104:
adskille celleprøver uden for invi
- Page 105 and 106:
BILAG 2.3.2 - TABEL 2Diagnosefordel
- Page 107:
Tabellen over årsag til at en cell