Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 975

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

Solomon, D., Schiffman, M., Tarone, R.·2001·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/93.4.293

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 975

Metadata

Authors
Solomon, D., Schiffman, M., & Tarone, R.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
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.