The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Three Management Strategies for Patients With Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 2 million U.S. women receive an equivocal cervical cytologic diagnosis (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS]) each year. Effective colposcopy triage strategies are needed to identify the minority of women who have clinically significant disease while avoiding excessive follow-up evaluation for others. METHODS: The ASCUS/LSIL (i.e., low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) Triage Study (ALTS) is a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the sensitivity and specificity of the following three management strategies to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3): 1) immediate colposcopy (considered to be the reference standard), 2) triage to colposcopy based on human papillomavirus (HPV) results from Hybrid Capture 2(TM) (HC 2) and thin-layer cytology results, or 3) triage based on cytology results alone. This article summarizes the cross-sectional enrollment results for 3488 women with a referral diagnosis of ASCUS. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: Among participants with ASCUS, the underlying prevalence of histologically confirmed CIN3 was 5.1%. Sensitivity to detect CIN3 or above by testing for cancer-associated HPV DNA was 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.6% to 98.8%), with 56.1% of women referred to colposcopy. Sensitivity of a single repeat cytology specimen with a triage threshold of HSIL or above was 44.1% (95% CI = 35.6% to 52.9%), with 6.9% referred. Sensitivity of a lower cytology triage threshold of ASCUS or above was 85.3% (95% CI = 78.2% to 90.8%), with 58.6% referred. CONCLUSIONS: HC 2 testing for cancer-associated HPV DNA is a viable option in the management of women with ASCUS. It has greater sensitivity to detect CIN3 or above and specificity comparable to a single additional cytologic test indicating ASCUS or above.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The 2001 Bethesda System<SUBTITLE>Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology</SUBTITLE>
Solomon, D. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.2114 · Cited by 3,104
Self-citationHuman papillomavirus and cervical cancer
Burd, E. M. (2003) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.16.1.1-17.2003 · Cited by 2,420
Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study
Cuzick, J., Szarewski, A., Cubie, H., Hulman, G., Kitchener, H., Luesley, D., McGoogan, E., Menon, U., Terry, G., Edwards, R., et al. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14955-0 · Cited by 510
HPV‐mediated cervical carcinogenesis: concepts and clinical implications
Snijders, P. J., Steenbergen, R. D., Heideman, D. A., & Meijer, C. J. (2006) · The Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1002/path.1866 · Cited by 455
Arbyn, M., Buntinx, F., Ranst, M. V., Paraskevaidis, E., Martin-Hirsch, P., & Dillner, J. (2004) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djh037 · Cited by 359
Metadata
- Authors
- Solomon, D., Schiffman, M., & Tarone, R.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-02-21
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 293-299
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2141196337
- Cited by
- 975
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 72.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Three Management Strategies for Patients With Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/93.4.293
- The paper
- Solomon, D., Schiffman, M., & Tarone, R. (2001). Comparison of Three Management Strategies for Patients With Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.4.293
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.