Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Screening

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Cytopreparation

Part of the book series: Essentials in Cytopathology ((EICP,volume 12))

Abstract

The first schools of cytotechnology in the world were established in America in 1947 in New York and Hartford, Connecticut. The American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP) certified Rosalyn S. Yaskin Abrams as the first cytotechnologist in 1957. In 1960, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began paying stipends of $225.00 per month for up to 12 months to encourage enrollment of cytotechnology students. That amount is about $20,000 per year in 2012 dollars. The number of cytotechnology schools reached a peak of about 130 in the early 1970s, and today, the number is about 32. As of June 2011, ASCP reports that 15,224 cytotechnologists have been certified. As of 2009, the latest year as of this writing for which CMS has provided data, 6,064 cytotechnologists screen Pap smears. As the outgoing president of the American Society of Cytopathology in 1996, Prabodh Gupta, declared, “the Pap test is cytopathology.”1 Cytotechnology: The First Half-Century, a 3-part series by Florence W. Patten, is available online.2–4

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Gupta PK. Cytopathology today: challenges and opportunities. Acta Cytol. 1997;41(1):1–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Patten FW. Cytotechnology: the first half-century. Part I. ASC Bull. 2002;39(3):37, 40–43, 46–47. Available at http://www.cytopathology.org/website/article.asp?id=2355. Accessed 15 Mar 2012.

  3. Patten FW. Cytotechnology: the first half-century. Part II. ASC Bull. 2002;39(4):53, 56–57, 59, 61–62. Available at: http://www.cytopathology.org/website/article.asp?id=2355. Accessed 15 Mar 2012.

  4. Patten FW. Cytotechnology: the first half-century. Parts III. ASC Bull. 2002;39(7):101–103, 109–111, 120–122. Available at: http://www.cytopathology.org/website/article.asp?id=2355. Accessed 15 Mar 2012.

  5. Gill GW. Is here a standard of practice for screening Pap smears, and if so, what is its significance? LabMedicine. 2006;37(1):40.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gill GW. Automated cytology workload: global considerations (manual and automated). Public Comment. Presented at CLIAC Meeting, Atlanta GA, 02.14-15.2012. Tab_26_CLIAC_2012Feb_Public_Comment_Cytology_Gill.pdf. Available at http://wwwn.cdc.gov/cliac/cliac_meeting_view_documents.aspx?MeetingDocumentID=196. Accessed 22 Mar 2012.

  7. Bogdanich W. False negative. Medical labs, trusted as largely error-free, are far from infallible. Haste, misuse of equipment, specimen mix-ups afflict even best labs at times. Regulation; weak and spotty. Wall St J. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bogdanich W. Lax laboratories. The Pap test misses much cervical cancer through labs’ errors. Cut-rate ‘Pap mills’ process slides with incentives to rush. Misplaced sense of security? Wall St J. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bogdanich W. Physicians’ careless with Pap tests is cited in procedure’s high failure rate. Wall St J. 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kornstein MJ, Byrne SP. The medicolegal aspects of error in pathology. A search of jury verdicts and settlements. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(4):615–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Fischer D, et al. Does the time of day or weekday affect screening accuracy? A pilot correlation study with cytotechnologist workload and abnormal rate detection using the ThinPrep Imaging System. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118(1):41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM. Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: a review. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011;39(11):832–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holbrook M, Roebuck J, Rana DN, et al. Unidirectional versus bidirectional screening of SurePath® liquid based cytology slides – pitfalls & perils of study design. Cytopathology. 2006;17 Suppl 1:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gill GW. Unaddressed issues in cytotechnology I: how did I miss those cells? Adv Med Lab Prof. 1995;7(23):5–7, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Birdsong G. Panel discusses impact of new technologies on workload limits. ASC Bull. 1999;36(7):96.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gill GW. Optimising and standardising microscopic screening coverage. First find one abnormal cell. SCAN. 2001;12(1):10–2, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hollander DH, Frost JK. Retrieval of located cells in screened cytologic material. Acta Cytol. 1969;13(11):603–4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bierig JR. Removing dots from cytology slides—liability issues. CAP Today. 2005;19(1). Available at http://www.cap.org/apps/portlets/contentViewer/show.do?printFriendly=true&contentReference=cap_today%2Fpap_ngc%2F0105NGC_CytoDots.html. Accessed 15 Mar 2012.

  19. McCoy DR. Defending the Pap smear: a proactive approach to the litigation threat in gynecologic cytology. Pathology Patterns Reviews. 2000;114(Suppl 1):S52–8. Available at http://ajcp.ascpjournals.org/content/supplements/114/Suppl_1/S52.full.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2012.

  20. Gerstein MD. It’s a matter of record for the laboratory. LabMedicine. 2001;32(5):235–8.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baker RW, Brugal G, Coleman DV. Assessing slide coverage by cytoscreeners during the primary screening of cervical smears, using the AxioHOME Microscope system. Analyt Cell Pathol. 1997;13(1):29–37.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Klarmann Rulings, Inc., 480 Charles Bancroft Highway, Litchfield NH 03052-1088; in NH: (603) 424-2401; outside NH toll-free: (800) 252-2401, sales@reticles.com.Tutorials of Cytology http://www.reticles.com/. Accessed 26 Mar 2012.

  23. Patten Jr SF. Diagnostic cytopathology of the uterine cervix. 2nd ed. revised. Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schmidt JL, Henriksen JC, McKeon DM, et al. Visual estimates of nucleus-to-nucleus ratios. Can we trust our eyes to use the Bethesda ASCUS and LSIL size criteria? Can Cytopathol. 2008;114(5):287–93.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gill GW. Eyepieces – bigger isn’t better. ASCT J Cytotechnol. 1997;1(1):29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Reuter B, Schenck U. Investigation of the visual cytoscreening of conventional gynecologic smears. II. Analysis of eye movement. In: Wied GL, Bartels PH, Rosenthal DL, et al., editors. Compendium on the computerized cytology and histology laboratory. Chicago, IL: The Tutorials of Cytology; 1995. p. 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Warm JS, editor. Sustained attention in human performance. New York, NY: Wiley; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Warm JS, Parasuraman R, Matthews G. Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors. 2008;50(3):433–41. Available at http://uc.academia.edu/GeraldMatthews/Papers/927907/Vigilance_Requires_Hard_Mental_Work_and_Is_Stressful. Accessed 25 Mar 2012.

  29. Gill GW. Vigilantes – eyepiece guards for maximum attention. ASC Bull. 1998;35(4):58.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mackworth NH. The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. J Exp Psychol. 1948;1:6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gill GW. Unaddressed issues in cytotechnology III. Vigilance in cytoscreening. Looking without seeing. Adv Med Lab Prof. 1996;8(15):14–5,21.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Monk TH. Search, chapter 9. In: Warm JS, editor. Sustained attention in human performance. New York, NY: Wiley; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schenck U, Reuter B. Analysis of the cytoscreening technique as a method of quality control. In: Wied GL, Keebler CM, Koss LG, Patten SF, Rosenthal DL, editors. Compendium on diagnostic cytology. 7th ed. Chicago, IL: The Tutorials of Cytology; 1992/3. p. 437–40.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schenck U, Planding W. Quality assurance by continuous recording of the microscope status. Acta Cytol. 1996;40(1):73–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Schenck 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(1):35–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gill GW. Pap smear risk management by process control. Can Cytopathol. 1997;81(4):198–211.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Cytological Consultant, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Gary W. Gill BA, CT(ASCP)

Authors
  1. Gary W. Gill BA, CT(ASCP)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gill, G.W. (2013). Screening. In: Cytopreparation. Essentials in Cytopathology, vol 12. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4933-1_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4933-1_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4932-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4933-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation