[Skip to Navigation]
Article
November 1966

CRITIQUE OF CHANDLER'S "NONVALUE OF ORAL CYTOLOGY"

Author Affiliations

MPH Chief, Cancer Control Branch Division of Chronic Diseases US Public Health Service

Arch Otolaryngol. 1966;84(5):576-577. doi:10.1001/archotol.1966.00760030578025

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.—The cytology laboratories mentioned in connection with the "pap" smears did not "spring up." The growth of these laboratories and the increasing use of cervical cytology has been due, at least in part, to the fact that the Public Health Service has been supporting the training of pathologists in cytology and of cytotechnologists, and has made grants available for the initiation of cervical cytology programs.

The statement that Morrison's conclusions are "damning and discouraging" could be interpreted as a biased statement. What Morrison et al said in "Diagnosis of Malignancy of the Nasopharynx: Cytological Studies by the Smear Technic," in Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology (58:18-32 [March] 1949) was:

  1. The results obtained by the smear technic are excellent.

  2. It is not a substitute for biopsy.

  3. It is an excellent adjunct in the diagnosis of exfoliating neoplasms and has shown itself to be

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×