[Possibilities and limits of a cytologic early detection program for XXXX ].

@entity1204 @entity1 @entity5 @entity2622 @entity189 @entity1869
In a review of the most important examination methods for diagnosis of @entity1204 so far published the efficacy of each of the individual methods is assessed according to uniform criteria. Only the specimens diagnosed as positive were taken as a basis for the rate of correct diagnosis, in order to facilitate comparison of the efficacy of the methods with one another. The validity of the methods is briefly outlined. Cytological diagnosis of @entity1204 is appreciably less reliable than that of @entity2622 , regardless of the method used. The cytodiagnostic problems are different, depending whether exfoliative cytology or endouterine biopsy techniques have been used. @entity5 of highly differentiated @entity5 cells are most seldom identified by the conventional smear techniques. Taking the @entity1204 and @entity1869 @entity1 at Erlangen University Gynecological Clinic between 1963 and 1981 as a basis, and limiting the scope of the study to high-risk adipose @entity1 aged over 45, one-fifth of the @entity189 and one-fourth of the precancerous @entity1 would not be included in a program based on risk factors. Of the Erlangen @entity1 , a 5-year survival probability of 95% and more was calculated for @entity1 with @entity5 from cytologically highly differentiated @entity5 cells in histological stage I. It is particularly difficult to identify these @entity1 cytologically, and the prognosis for them can hardly be improved further. Cytological nucleus grading proved a reliable prognosis factor, in particular for histologically undifferentiated @entity5 .(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
