Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology With Conventional Cytology for Detection of Cervical Cancer Precursors

Siebers, Albertus G.; Klinkhamer, Paul J. J. M.; Grefte, Johanna M. M.; Massuger, Leon F.A.G.; Vedder, Judith E. M.; Beijers-Broos, Angelique; Bulten, Johan; Arbyn, Marc

doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1569

Cited by 226 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the studies of high-grade lesions, Ronco et al [7] reported that the histological detection rates for primary screening with 3-year screening intervals were almost the same with the LBC method and the conventional method for low-grade intraepithelial lesions or higher diagnosed by cytology. Similarly, Siebers et al [13] reported that the detection rates after a 5-year screening interval were 0.61% with the LBC method and 0.62% with the conventional method. These two reports described similar LBC detection rates to those found in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…whether or not it is superior to the conventional method, are not consistent with regard to cancer detection in screening. The lesion detection rate by the LBC method was higher than that of the conventional method in meta-analyses [1,12,13], and the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [8] and high-grade lesions [15] was also higher. In our study, the SCC and HSIL detection rates were significantly greater.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unsatisfactory specimens are ≤1.1%, and one of the most common reasons for unsatisfactory specimens was too few squamous cells [11]. In addition, some reports have stated that the LBC method is associated with a higher cancer detection rate than the conventional method [1,8,12,13,14,15], whereas other reports found no difference between both methods [2,3,4,7,9,16,17,18,19,20]. According to meta-analyses and randomized studies, the number of unsatisfactory slides was not lower, or detection of high-grade lesions was not increased compared with conventional cytology [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology with Conventional Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To clarify the performance of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and conventional methods of preparing cervical specimens for cytological screening. Study Design: We studied 236,511 patients who participated in a population-based cervical cancer screening program conducted in the Niigata prefecture between 2005 and 2008. The percentage of unsatisfactory specimens and the disease detection rate were compared between specimens prepared by LBC and conventional methods. Results: (1) The LBC method demonstrated a significantly lower percentage of unsatisfactory specimens than the conventional method (1.38 and 11.45%, respectively; p < 0.01). (2) Among the initial women, tumor lesions were detected in 0.57% of those examined with the LBC method, which was significantly higher than the positivity rate of those examined with the conventional method (0.25%; p < 0.05). Among the women with repeat screening, disease was detected in 0.08% of those examined with LBC twice, which was significantly lower than the positivity rates for those examined with the conventional method followed by the LBC method (0.11%) or the conventional method twice (0.16%; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The LBC method is significantly more useful than the conventional method in terms of the low adequacy rate and the high detection rate of cancer in cervical cancer screening in a localized area in Japan.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology with Conventional Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both NG and FNA cytopathology research had comparable frequency and distribution of RCTs, SRs and MAs (table 1). Noncytopathologists performed most of the gynecology RCTs [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. The noncytopathologists to cytopathologists ratio was 4.3:1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Randomized Controlled Trials in Cytopathology

AbdullGaffar

2012

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) relies on systematic review (SR), meta-analysis (MA) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These EBM tools are more commonly used in clinical medicine than in laboratory medicine. The extent of their use in cytopathology is not clear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency of SR, MA and RCTs in cytopathology compared to other laboratory and clinical medicine specialties. Study Design: A literature-based search for SRs, MAs and RCTs in cytopathology was performed. Several electronic databases were searched without date restrictions. Four journals in cytopathology, pathology and clinical medicine were also searched over 6 years. Results: Gynecology cytology utilized SRs, MAs and RCTs more frequently (83%) than nongynecology and fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytopathology, histopathology and laboratory medicine journals showed comparable rates of 0.5–1.1% in papers reporting SRs, MAs and RCTs. Specialty medical journals showed a higher rate of 5.6% and general medical journals showed a much higher rate of 30%. Conclusions: SR, MA and RCTs are less frequently utilized in pathology than in clinical medicine. Cytopathologists should be more aware of the benefits of SR and MA in resolving uncertainties and improving the clinical applicability of level III diagnostic studies.

show abstract

“…It should be noted that unsatisfactory smears account for a number of screening failures and are a source of distress to women and a waste of resources [19,20]. It is assumed that LBC decreases the unsatisfactory rate by reducing the number of specimens that are inadequate because of obscuring inflammatory cells and blood or because of inhomogeneous distribution or bad fixation of cells [21,22]. Another major benefit of LBC is the ability to triage patients with ancillary testing of the remaining specimen in the collection media.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte Liquid-Based Cytology in Comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath Methods

Alaghehbandan

2013

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Glucyte liquid-based cytology (LBC; BestPrep™;CellSolutions, LLC, Greensboro, N.C., USA) is a recently developed method. Its performance was assessed in comparison with ThinPrep (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, Mass., USA) and SurePath (BD Diagnostics, Burlington, N.C., USA) LBC platforms. Study Design: Two cervical samples obtained from each of 331 patients presenting for colposcopy were utilized. The first sample was placed in PreservCyt (Hologic) and the second in SurePath medium, and both were processed in accordance with the manufacturers’ protocols. From the residual SurePath sample, a Glucyte slide was prepared, stained, and read as per the manufacturer’s instructions. Results: Considering a threshold cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and using a histologic diagnosis of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN 2+) as the end point, there was no significant difference in the sensitivity of Glucyte for the detection of CIN 2+ compared with ThinPrep and SurePath (86.9 vs. 81.9% and 83.7%, respectively). However, Glucyte showed a specificity of 49.2% compared with 61.6% for ThinPrep (p = 0.002) and 66.9% for SurePath (p < 0.001). Considering a threshold cytologic diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, Glucyte showed a sensitivity of 40.5% for detecting CIN 2+ compared with 20.5% for ThinPrep (p = 0.003) and 54.7% for SurePath (p = 0.013). The corresponding specificities were 93.8, 99.1, and 94.3%. The rate of unsatisfactory specimens for Glucyte was 1.2% compared with ThinPrep (4.8%) and SurePath (0%). Conclusion: Glucyte appeared to perform reasonably well compared with ThinPrep and SurePath. It offers an alternative to these well recognized LBC systems.

show abstract

Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology With Conventional Cytology for Detection of Cervical Cancer Precursors

Abstract: For editorial comment see p 1809.

Cited by 226 publications

References 45 publications

A Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology with Conventional Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening

A Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology with Conventional Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening

Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Randomized Controlled Trials in Cytopathology

Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte Liquid-Based Cytology in Comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About