|
1
|
Kumar N, Gupta R and Gupta S: Glandular
cell abnormalities in cervical cytology: What has changed in this
decade and what has not? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.
240:68–73. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
2
|
Schorge JO, Knowles LM and Lea JS:
Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 5:119–127.
2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
3
|
Smith HO, Tiffany MF, Qualls CR and Key
CR: The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous
cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the United States-A 24-year
population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 78:97–105. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
4
|
Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, Lacey
JV Jr and Devesa S: Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell
carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the
United States for 1976–2000. Cancer. 100:1035–1044. 2004.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
5
|
Salani R, Puri I and Bristow RE:
Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: A metaanalysis of
1278 patients evaluating the predictive value of conization margin
status. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 200:182.e1–5. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
6
|
Teoh D, Musa F, Salani R, Huh W and
Jimenez E: Diagnosis and management of adenocarcinoma in situ: A
society of gynecologic oncology evidence-based review and
recommendations. Obstet Gynecol. 135:869–878. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
7
|
Miller RA, Mody DR, Tams KC and Thrall MJ:
Glandular lesions of the cervix in clinical practice A cytology,
histology, and human papillomavirus correlation study from 2
institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 139:1431–1436. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
8
|
Baalbergen A and Helmerhorst TJ:
Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix-a systematic review.
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 24:1543–1548. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
9
|
Andersson S, Larson B, Hjerpe A,
Silfverswärd C, Sällström J, Wilander E and Rylander E:
Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: The presence of human
papillomavirus and the method of detection. Acta Obstet Gynecol
Scand. 82:960–965. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
10
|
Wang J, Andrae B, Sundström K, Ström P,
Ploner A, Elfström KM, Arnheim-Dahlström L, Dillner J and Sparén P:
Risk of invasive cervical cancer after atypical glandular cells in
cervical screening: Nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 352:i2762016.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
11
|
Norman I, Hjerpe A and Dillner J: Risk of
high-grade lesions after atypical glandular cells in cervical
screening: A population-based cohort study. BMJ Open.
7:e0170702017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
12
|
Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ,
Poljak M, Ogilvie G, Koliopoulos G, Nauclen P, Sankaranarayanan R
and Peto J: Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in
secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine. 30 (Suppl
5):F88–F99. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
13
|
Brismar S, Johansson B, Borjesson M, Arbyn
M and Andersson S: Follow-up after treatment of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia by human papillomavirus genotyping. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 201:17.e1–8. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
14
|
Kocken M, Uijterwaal MH, de Vries ALM,
Berkhof J, Ket JCF, Helmerhorst TJM and Meijer CJLM: High-risk
papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment
disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 125:500–507.
2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
15
|
Persson M, Wendel SB, Ljungblad L,
Johansson B, Weiderpass E and Andersson S: High-risk human
papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA and L1 DNA as markers of
residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Oncol Rep.
28:346–352. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
16
|
Garutti P, Borghi C, Bedoni C, Bonaccorsi
G, Greco P, Tognon M and Martini F: HPV-based strategy in follow-up
of patients treated for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial
neoplasia: 5-year results in a public health surveillance setting.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 210:236–241. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
17
|
Bruhn L, Andersen S and Hariri J:
HPV-testing versus HPV-cytology co-testing to predict the outcome
after conization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 97:758–765. 2018.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
18
|
Namugenyi SB, Balsan MJ, Glick SN and
Jordan JA: Prevalence and genotype distribution of human
papillomavirus in cytology specimens containing atypical glandular
cells: A case-control study. J Clin Virol. 58:432–436. 2013.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
19
|
de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, Geraets
DT, Klaustermeier JE, Lloveras B, Tous S, Felix A, Bravo LE, Shin
HR, et al: Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive
cervical cancer: A retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study.
Lancet Oncol. 11:1048–1056. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
20
|
Fröberg M, Östensson E, Belkić K, Oštrbenk
A, Poljak M, Mints M, Arbyn M and Andersson S: The impact of HPV
status on development of high-grade cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia in women negative for intraepithelial lesions or
malignancy at baseline: 9-year Swedish nested case-control
follow-up study. Cancer. 125:239–248. 2019.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
21
|
Mulhem E, Amin M, Copeland J, Sharma J and
Hunter S: Type-specific Human Papillomavirus DNA detected in
atypical glandular cell Pap tests. Acta Cytol. 56:155–159. 2012.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
22
|
Rabelo-Santos S, Derchain SFM, Villa LL,
Costa MC, Sarian LOZ, do Amaral Westin MC, Kornegay J and Zeferino
LC: Human papillomavirus-specific genotypes in cervical lesions of
women referred for smears with atypical glandular cells or
adenocarcinoma in situ. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 28:272–278. 2009.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
23
|
Cleveland AA, Gargano JW, Park IU, Griffin
MR, Niccolai LM, Powell M, Bennett NM, Saadeh K, Pemmaraju M,
Higgins K, et al: Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: Human
papillomavirus types and incidence trends in five states, 2008-
2015. Int J Cancer. 146:810–818. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
24
|
Andersson S, Megyessi D, Belkić K, Alder
S, Östensson E and Mints M: Age, margin status, high-risk human
papillomavirus and cytology independently predict recurrent
high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia up to 6 years after
treatment. Oncol Lett. 22:6842021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
25
|
Östensson E, Belkić K, Ramqvist T, Mints M
and Andersson S: Self-sampling for high-risk human papillomavirus
as a follow-up alternative after treatment of high-grade cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia. Oncol Lett. 21:2402021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
26
|
Alder S, Megyessi D, Sundström K,
Östensson E, Mints M, Belkić K, Arbyn M and Andersson S: Incomplete
excision of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as a predictor of
the risk of recurrent disease-a 16 year follow-up study. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 222:172.e1–172.e12. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
27
|
Alder S: Prevention of cervical cancer in
countries with high and low incidence of the disease. Doctoral
Dissertation. Karolinska Institute; Stockholm: 2018
|
|
28
|
Costales A, Milbourne A, Rhodes H, Munsell
MF, Wallbillich J, Brown JJ, Frumovitz M, Ramondetta LM and
Schmeler KM: Risk of residual disease and invasive carcinoma in
women treated for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Gynecol
Oncol. 129:513–516. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
29
|
Tan JHJ, Malloy MJ, Thangamani R, Gertig
D, Drennan KT, Wrede CD, Saville M and Quinn M: Management and
long-term outcomes of women with adenocarcinoma in situ of the
cervix: A retrospective study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol.
60:123–129. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
30
|
Young JL, Jazaeri AA, Lachance JA, Stoler
MH, Irvin WP, Rice LW, Andersen WA and Modesitt SC: Cervical
adenocarcinoma in situ: The predictive value of conization margin
status. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 197:195.e1–e7. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
31
|
Costa S, Negri G, Sideri M, Santini D,
Martinelli G, Venturoli S, Pelusi C, Syrjanen S, Syrjanen K and
Pelusi G: Human papillomavirus (HPV) test and PAP smear as
predictors of outcome in conservatively treated adenocarcinoma in
situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 106:170–176. 2007.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
32
|
Costa S, Venturoli S, Negri G, Sideri M,
Preti M, Pesaresi M, Falasca A, Barbieri D, Zerbini M, Santini D,
et al: Factors predicting the outcome of conservatively treated
adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: An analysis of 166
cases. Gynecol Oncol. 124:490–495. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
33
|
Kong TW, Son JH, Chang SJ, Paek J, Lee Y
and Ryu HS: Value of endocervical margin and high-risk human
papillomavirus status after conization for high-grade cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, and
microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol.
135:468–473. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
34
|
Arbyn M, Redman CWE, Verdoodt F, Kyrgiou
M, Tzafetas M, Ghaem-Maghami S, Petry KU, Leeson S, Bergeron C,
Nieminen P, et al: Incomplete excision of cervical precancer as a
predictor of treatment failure: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 18:1665–1679. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
35
|
Song T, Lee YY, Choi CH, Kim TJ, Lee JW,
Bae DS and Kim BG: The effect of coexisting squamous cell lesions
on prognosis in patients with cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. Eur
J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 190:26–30. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
36
|
Acladious NN, Sutton C, Mandal D, Hopkins
R, Zaklama M and Kitchener H: Persistent human papillomavirus
infection and smoking increase risk of failure of treatment of
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Int J Cancer. 98:435–439.
2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
37
|
Feletto E, Grogan P, Nickson C, Smith M
and Canfell K: How has COVID-19 impacted cancer screening?
Adaptation of services and the future outlook in Australia. Public
Health Res Pract. 30:e30420262020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
38
|
de Pelsemaeker MC, Guiot Y, Vanderveken J,
Galant C and Van Bockstal M: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
and the associated Belgian governmental measures on cancer
screening, surgical pathology and cytopathology. Pathobiology.
88:46–55. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
39
|
Kregting L, Kaljouw S, de Jonge L, Jansen
EEL, Peterse EFP, Heijnsdijk EAM, van Ravesteyn NT,
Lansdorp-Vogelaar I and de Kok IM: Effects of cancer screening
restart strategies after COVID-19 disruption. Br J Cancer.
124:1516–1523. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
40
|
Miller MJ, Xu L, Qin J, Hahn EE,
Ngo-Metzger Q, Mittman B, Tewari D, Hodeib M, Wride P, Saraiya M
and Chao CR: Impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer screening rates
among women aged 21–65 in a large integrated health care
system-Southern California January 1-September 30, 2019 and January
1-September 30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 70:109–113. 2021.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
41
|
Gorin SN, Jimbo M, Heizelman R, Harmes KM
and Harper DM: The future of cancer screening after COVID-19 may be
at home. Cancer. 127:498–503. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
42
|
Nogami Y, Kobayashi Y, Tsuji K, Yokota M,
Nishio H, Nakamura M, Yamagami W, Morisada T, Tominaga E, Banno K
and Aoki D: Impact of the COVID-19 epidemic at a high-volume
facility in gynecological oncology in Tokyo, Japan: A single-center
experience. J Ovarian Res. 13:1052020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
43
|
Burger EA, Jansen EE, Killen J, de Kok IM,
Smith MA, Sy S, Dunnewind N, Campos NG, Haas JS, Kobrin S, et al:
Impact of COVID-19-related care disruptions on cervical cancer
screening in the United States. J Med Screen. 28:213–216. 2021.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
44
|
Dillner J: Covid-19: Challenges and
Opportunities for Cancer Screening: An example from cervical cancer
in Sweden. International Agency for Research on Cancer COVID-19 and
cancer screening; 2021
|
|
45
|
Ajenifuja KO, Belinson J, Goldstein A,
Desai KT, de Sanjose S and Schiffman M: Designing low-cost,
accurate cervical screening strategies that take into account
COVID-19: A role for self-sampled HPV typing. Infect Agent Cancer.
15:612020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
46
|
Ciavattini A, Carpini GD, Giannella L,
Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Joura EA, Sehouli J, Carcopino X, Redman CW,
Nieminen P, et al: European federation for colposcopy (EFC)
European society of gynaecological oncology (SGO) joint
considerations about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination,
screening programs, colposcopy, and surgery during and after the
COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 30:1097–1100. 2020.
View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
47
|
Cohen MA, Powell AM, Coleman JS, Keller
JM, Livingston A and Anderson JR: Special ambulatory gynecologic
considerations in the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
and implications for future practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
223:372–378. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
48
|
Feldman S and Haas JS: How the Corona
disease-2019 may improve care: Rethinking cervical cancer
prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst. 113:662–664. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
49
|
Arbyn M, Verdoodt F, Snijders PJ, Verhoef
VM, Suonio E, Dillner L, Minozzi S, Bellisario C, Banzi R, Zhao FH,
et al: Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected
versus clinician-collected samples: A meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol.
15:172–183. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
50
|
Arbyn M, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Berkhof
J, Cuschieri K, Kocjan BJ and Poljak M: Which high-risk HPV assays
fulfill criteria for use in primary cervical cancer screening? Clin
Microbiol Infect. 21:817–826. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
51
|
Jentschke M, Chen K, Arbyn M, Hertel B,
Noskowicz M, Soergel P and Hillemans P: Direct comparison of two
vaginal self-sampling devices for the detection of human
papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol. 82:46–50. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
52
|
Bergengren L, Kaliff M, Larsson GL,
Karlsson MG and Helenius G: Comparison between professional
sampling and self-sampling for HPV-based cervical cancer screening
among postmenopausal women. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 142:359–364.
2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
53
|
Östensson E, Hellström AC, Hellman K,
Gustavsson I, Gyllensten U, Wilander E, Zethraeus N and Andersson
S: Projected cost-effectiveness of repeat high-risk human
papillomavirus testing using self-collected vaginal samples in the
Swedish cervical cancer screening program. Acta Obstet Gynecol
Scand. 92:830–840. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
54
|
Galbraith KV, Gilkey MB, Smith JS, Richman
AR, Barclay L and Brewer NT: Perceptions of mailed HPV self-testing
among women at higher risk for cervical cancer. J Community Health.
39:849–856. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
55
|
Arrossi S, Ramos S, Straw C, Thouyaret L
and Orellana L: HPV testing: A mixed-method approach to understand
why women prefer self-collection in a middle-income country. BMC
Public Health. 16:8322016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
56
|
Racey CS and Gesink DC: Barriers and
facilitators to cervical cancer screening among women in rural
Ontario, Canada: The role of self-collected HPV testing. J Rural
Health. 32:136–145. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
57
|
Vahabi M and Lofters A: Muslim immigrant
women's views on cervical cancer screening and HPV self-sampling in
Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health. 16:8682016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
58
|
Mao C, Kulasingam SL, Whitham HK, Hawes
SE, Lin J and Kiviat NB: Clinician and patient acceptability of
self-collected human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer
screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 26:609–615. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
59
|
Andersson S, Belkić K, Mints M and
Östensson E: Acceptance of self-sampling among long-term cervical
screening non-attenders with HPV positive results: Promising
opportunity for specific cancer education. J Cancer Educ.
36:126–133. 2021. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
|
60
|
Andersson S, Belkić K, Mints M and
Östensson E: Is self-sampling to test for HPV an acceptable option
among women who have been treated for high-grade cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia? PLoS One. 13:e01990382018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
|
