Current cervical cancer screening practices of Dane Country, Wsconsin Primary care clinicians

University of Wisconsin, Department of Family Medicine, 777 S. Mills St, Madison, Wis. 53715-1896, USA.
WMJ: official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin 02/2003; 102(3):35-40.
Source: PubMed


This study explores clinician Papanicolaou (Pap) smear collection and management strategies in light of current research, guidelines, and recommendations.
Two hundred thirty eligible obstetrician/gynecologists, family physicians, and advance practice nurses in Dane County, Wisconsin completed a survey. Descriptive statistics.
The wooden spatula is most frequently (68%) used to collect ectocervical cells; the Cytobrush (75%) for endocervical cells. Most clinicians (63%) collect ectocervical cells first, endocervical cells second. Eighty-nine percent of clinicians are familiar with liquid-based Pap smears; 57% use them. Most clinicians (59%) prepare the cervix as needed prior to collecting a sample. Management of inflammation is variable. Forty-five percent of clinicians have no age limit in discontinuing Pap smears; 43% continue after benign hysterectomy. Training for doing Pap smears occurs primarily in residency (89%) or graduate nursing education (83%).
Despite current research and guidelines, great variability exists among clinicians in Pap smear collection and management. Textbooks, articles, and clinician training must emphasize optimal collection technique and management to improve Pap smear quality and decrease unnecessary costs.

Download full-text


Available from: Marlon P Mundt,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In dieser Studie wurde der konventionelle Abstrich mit dem ThinPrep®-Test der Firma Cytyc bei 852 Prostituierten verglichen. Der Vergleich der diagnostischen Aussagefähigkeit beider Verfahren ergab eine sehr gute Übereinstimmung (Kappa =0,78 ). Der Anteil der Präparate mit Dysplasieverdacht lag bei 8,92%. Der hohe Anteil fehlender endozervikaler Zellen (10,9% konv. /17,5% ThinPrep®) führt zur Forderung nach einer verbesserten Schulung der Untersucher. Es zeigte sich kein signifikanter Verlust von endozervikalen Zellen für die ThinPrep®-Abstriche (Split-sampling). Die geringe Anzahl befriedigender Präparate (46% konv. /62% ThinPrep®) kann mit der großen Menge an Entzündungszellen begründet werden. Es zeigte sich jedoch kein signifikanter Unterschied in der Präparatequalität. Die neue Technologie sollte auch für Frauen mit riskantem Sexualverhalten zugänglich sein, da sich hier zusätzliche Verwendungsmöglichkeiten ergeben, z.B. die Identifikation sexuell übertragbarer Erreger.
  • Source

    WMJ: official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin 02/2003; 102(5):4.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews the data available as of 2004 on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening with the two available cytologic methods, the conventional Papanicolaou (Pap; CP) smear and liquid-based cytology (LBC), and discusses the application of LBC to current practice. The majority of LBC studies are on the ThinPrep Pap Test (CYTYC, Boxsborough, MA) and the remainder are on SurePath (TriPath, Burlington, NC), which was previously known as AutoCyte Prep. LBC identified more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) Pap test results compared with paired conventional cytology in 17 of 21 ThinPrep and 9 of 12 SurePath "split-sample" studies considered to fulfill the criteria for inclusion in the British NHS Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluation of cervical cytology. In four of the six recent ThinPrep and one of two SurePath split-sample studies, more high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion-positive (HSIL+) results were identified by LBC than by CP. All 15 "direct-to vial studies" meeting HTA criteria reported more LSIL+ results for LBC compared with CP, and all eight of the direct-to-vial studies reporting HSIL+ results separately showed increased detection of high-grade cytology interpretations. Fifteen studies met the criteria for evaluating sensitivity and specificity. Aggregate sensitivity for the CP was 71.5% and for LBC was 80.1%. Indirect comparisons of the two LBC methods did not detect a difference in sensitivity, and a meta-analysis of the six studies comparing specificity between CP and LBC found no difference. Other capabilities of LBC are improved specimen adequacy and the ability to do ancillary testing out of the liquid-based vial. In cost-effective analyses based on models of disease natural history and/or the clinical effectiveness of each screening modality, screening with CP was always dominated by screening with LBC. Primary cervical screening guidelines issued by the American Cancer Society in 2002 recommend repeating the cytology biannually if liquid-based and annually if conventional. The gain in sensitivity, apparent cost-effectiveness, and advantage of having a representative specimen for ancillary testing, support the use of LBC.
    Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 11/2004; 2(6):597-611. · 4.18 Impact Factor
Show more