This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

WILLIAM L. Ross, MD
MPH Chief, Cancer Control Branch Division of Chronic Diseases US Public Health Service

Arch Otolaryngol. 1966;84(5):576-577.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

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
   

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?