DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Unsatisfactory Rates and Detection of Abnormal Cervical Cytology Between Conventional Papanicolaou Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology (Sure Path®)

  • Kituncharoen, Saroot (Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Tantbirojn, Patou (Division of Gynecologic Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital) ;
  • Niruthisard, Somchai (Division of Gynecologic Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital)
  • Published : 2016.01.11

Abstract

Purpose: To compare unsatisfactory rates and detection of abnormal cervical cytology between conventional cytology or Papanicolaou smear (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC). Materials and Methods: A total of 23,030 cases of cervical cytology performed at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital during 2012-2013 were reviewed. The percentage unsatisfactory and detection rates of abnormal cytology were compared between CC and LBC methods. Results: There was no difference in unsatisfactory rates between CC and LBC methods (0.1% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.84). The detection rate for squamous cell abnormalities was significantly higher with the LBC method (7.7% vs. 11.5%, p < 0.001), but those for overall abnormal glandular epithelium were similar (0.4% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.13). Low grade squamous lesion (ASC-US and LSIL) were more frequently detected by the LBC method (6.1% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in high gradd squamous lesions (1.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.95). When comparing between types of glandular abnormality, there was no significant difference the groups. Conclusions: There was no difference in unsatisfactory rates between the conventional smear and LBC. However, LBC could detect low grade squamous cell abnormalities more than CC, while there were similar rates of detection of high grade squamous cell lesions and glandular cell abnormalities.

Keywords

Cervical cancer screening;conventional cytology;detection rate;liquid based cytology;unsatisfactory rate

References

  1. Akamatsu S, Kodama S, Himeji Y, et al (2012). A comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology in cervical cancer screening. Acta Cytol, 56, 370-4 https://doi.org/10.1159/000337641
  2. Burnley C, Dudding N, Parker M, et al (2011). Glandular neoplasia and borderline endocervical reporting rates before and after conversion to the Sure Path(TM) liquid-based cytology (LBC) system. Diagn Cytopathol, 39, 869-74 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.21471
  3. Canda MT, Namik D, Orcun S, et al (2009). Clinical results of the liquid-based cervical cytology tool, liqui-preptm, in comparison with conventional smears for detection of squamous cell abnormalities. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 399-402
  4. Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, et al (2010). Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials. Br J Obstets Gynecol, 117, 1067-73 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02650.x
  5. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al (2006). Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet, 367, 122-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67961-0
  6. Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, et al (2004). Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer, 102, 269-79 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20599
  7. Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T, et al (2010). Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol, 38, 318-26
  8. Kirschner B, Simonsen K, Junge J (2006). Comparisons of conventional papanicolaou smear and surepath liquid-based cytology in the copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer. Cytopathol, 17, 187-94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00384.x
  9. Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B (2006). Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquidbased cytology. Diagn Cytopathol, 34, 780-5 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20515
  10. Singh VB, Gupta N, Nijhawan R, et al (2015). Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical Pap smears: experience from the first 1000 split samples. Indian J Pathol Microbiol, 58, 17-21 https://doi.org/10.4103/0377-4929.151157
  11. Sylvia T, louise K, William D, et al (2006). Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer, 118, 957-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21434
  12. Wilailak S (2009). Epidemiologic report of gynecologic cancer in Thailand. J Gynecol Oncol, 20, 81-3 https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2009.20.2.81

Cited by

  1. Cervical cytology and human papillomavirus among asymptomatic healthy volunteers in Vientiane, Lao PDR vol.17, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3900-6