X hits on this document





7 / 10


3) comprising members of the Ontario Cervical Screening Guidelines Development Committee, and members of the Ontario Provincial Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group for their valu- able input in the development of the cervical screening guidelines.

The members of the Gynecology Cancer DSG disclosed potential conflicts of interest relating to the topic of this practice guideline. One collaborator is employed by MDS Diagnostic Services and has investments with MDS (Dr F.Thompson). Another collaborator is a consultant for MDS Diagnostic Services and receives honoraria from MDS for his contributions (Dr T. Colgan). Four collabora- tors are currently involved in a trial examining the results of the implementation of SurePath (a liquid-based Pap test) in Ontario (Dr M. McLachlin, Dr T. Colgan, Ms R. Howlett, Dr V. Mai) and four collaborators are involved in a trial investigating the feasibility of implementing HPV testing in a family practice setting (Dr M. McLachlin, Dr J. Murphy, Ms R. Howlett, Dr F. Thompson). Two collaborators are members of the Cytobase Data Review Committee (Dr T. Colgan, Dr F. Thompson) and another collaborator is the Chair of the Cytology Committee of the Quality Manage- ment Program-Laboratory Services (Dr S. Boerner). No other potential conflicts of interest were declared.


  • 1.

    National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian cancer statistics, 2004. Toronto, Canada: National Cancer Institute of Canada; 2004.

  • 2.

    Browman GP, Levine MN, Mohide EA, Hayward RSA, Pritchard KI, Gafni A, et al. The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:502–12.

  • 3.

    Hartman KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D. Screening for cervical cancer: systematic evidence review No. 25. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute–University of North Carolina Evidence–based Practice Center under contract No. 290–97–0011). Rockville, (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); January 2002. Available from: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm. Accessed February 2, 2007.

  • 4.

    Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki AB, Smith RA, Eyre HJ, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:342–62.

  • 5.

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins. ACOG practice bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician–gynecologists. Number 45, August 2003. Cervical cytology screening (replaces committee opinion 152, March 1995). Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:417–27.

  • 6.

    Members of the Working Party on Cervical Screening. Recommendations for cervical screening 1997. NZ Med J 1998;111:94–8.

  • 7.

    Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120–9.

  • 8.

    Morrison BJ. Screening for cervical cancer. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Ottawa: Health Canada;1994: 870–81.

    • 9.

      Guidelines for the management of asymptomatic women with screen detected abnormalities. Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2004.

  • 10.

    World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC confirms efficacy of cervix cancer screening for women 25–65 in reducing mortality. Press Release No.: 151. IARC Cervix Cancer Screening Meeting 2004 Apr



20–27 [cited 2004 May 12]. Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/ Press_Releases/archives/pr151a.html. Accessed January 14, 2007.

  • 11.

    Noorani HZ, Brown A, Skidmore B, Stuart GCE. Liquid–based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2003. Technology Report No. 40.

  • 12.

    Goblirsch G, Kastner T, Madden J, McGlennen R, Stephenson–Cole J. Liquid–based cervical cytology. Bloomington (MN): Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement; 2003 Aug. Technology Assessment Report No.: 76.

  • 13.

    Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid–based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Winchester, England: Health Technology Assessment; 2000:4.

  • 14.

    Medical Services Advisory Committee. Liquid based cytology for cervical screening, August 2002. Canberra, Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2002. MSAC Reference 12a. Assessment report.

  • 15.

    McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR); 1999. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.: 5. AHCPR Publication No.: 99–E010.

  • 16.

    Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:i–196.

  • 17.

    Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Paraskevaidis E, Martin–Hirsch P, Dillner J. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta–analysis of the accuracy to detect high–grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:280–93.

  • 18.

    Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid–based cervical cytology. Cancer 2003;99:263–71.

  • 19.

    Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D. Prospective follow–up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1406–12.

  • 20.

    The ASCUS–LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. A randomized trial on the management of low–grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;188:1393–400.

  • 21.

    The ASCUS–LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;188:1383–92.

  • 22.

    Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999;318:1–5.

  • 23.

    Patnick J. Cervical cancer screening in England. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2205–8.

  • 24.

    Bos AB, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Women who participate in spontaneous screening are not at higher risk for cervical cancer than women who attend programme screening. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:827–31.

  • 25.

    Nygard JF, Skare GB, Thoresen SO. The cervical cancer–screening programme in Norway, 1992–2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer. J Med Screen 2002;9:86–91.

  • 26.

    Adab P, McGhee SM, Yanova J, Wong CM, Hedley AJ. Effectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic cervical cancer screening: comparison with organized screening. Med Care 2004;42:600–9.

  • 27.

    Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249–56.

  • 28.

    Colgan TJ, Clarke A, Hakh N, Seidenfeld A. Screening for cervical disease in mature women: strategies for improvement. Cancer 2002;96:195–203.

  • 29.

    Bailey JV, Kavanagh J, Owen C, McLean KA, Skinner CJ. Lesbians and cervical screening. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50:481–2.

  • 30.

    Marrazzo JM, Koutsky LA, Kiviat NB, Kuypers JM, Stine K. Papanicolaou test screening and prevalence of genital human papillomavirus among women who have sex with women. Am J Pub Health 2001;91:947–52.

Document info
Document views31
Page views31
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 11:16:50 UTC 2016