Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study.

J Monsonego, A Autillo-Touati, C Bergeron, R Dachez, J Liaras, J Saurel, L Zerat, P Chatelain, C Mottot
Author Information
  1. J Monsonego: Institut Alfred Fournier, 25 boulevard Saint Jacques, Paris, 75014, France.

Abstract

The aim of this six-centre, split-sample study was to compare ThinPrep fluid-based cytology to the conventional Papanicolaou smear. Six cytopathology laboratories and 35 gynaecologists participated. 5428 patients met the inclusion criteria (age > 18 years old, intact cervix, informed consent). Each cervical sample was used first to prepare a conventional Pap smear, then the sampling device was rinsed into a PreservCyt vial, and a ThinPrep slide was made. Screening of slide pairs was blinded (n = 5428). All non-negative concordant cases (n = 101), all non-concordant cases (n = 206), and a 5% random sample of concordant negative cases (n = 272) underwent review by one independent pathologist then by the panel of 6 investigators. Initial (blinded) screening results for ThinPrep and conventional smears were correlated. Initial diagnoses were correlated with consensus cytological diagnoses. Differences in disease detection were evaluated using McNemar's test. On initial screening, 29% more ASCUS cases and 39% more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and more severe lesions (LSIL+) were detected on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.001), including 50% more LSIL and 18% more high-grade SIL (HSIL). The ASCUS:SIL ratio was lower for the ThinPrep method (115:132 = 0.87:1) than for the conventional smear method (89:94 = 0.95:1). The same trend was observed for the ASCUS/AGUS:LSIL ratio. Independent and consensus review confirmed 145 LSIL+ diagnoses; of these, 18% more had been detected initially on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.041). The ThinPrep Pap Test is more accurate than the conventional Pap test and has the potential to optimize the effectiveness of primary cervical cancer screening.

References

  1. Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Aug;58(2):206-9 [PMID: 7622107]
  2. Cancer. 1998 Aug 25;84(4):202-7 [PMID: 9723594]
  3. Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):203-8 [PMID: 9479341]
  4. JAMA. 1984 Sep 21;252(11):1423-6 [PMID: 6471269]
  5. Acta Cytol. 1985 Nov-Dec;29(6):1043-6 [PMID: 3866457]
  6. J Formos Med Assoc. 1999 Jul;98(7):500-5 [PMID: 10463000]
  7. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Dec;76(6):1006-8 [PMID: 2234707]
  8. Cancer. 1997 Apr 25;81(2):89-97 [PMID: 9126136]
  9. Hong Kong Med J. 1999 Sep;5(3):233-239 [PMID: 11828061]
  10. Acta Cytol. 1997 Jan-Feb;41(1):30-8 [PMID: 9022723]
  11. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1998 Nov;27(7):683-91 [PMID: 9921438]
  12. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998 Feb;122(2):139-44 [PMID: 9499356]
  13. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):278-84 [PMID: 9241308]
  14. JAMA. 1999 Jan 27;281(4):347-53 [PMID: 9929088]
  15. Am J Manag Care. 2000 Jul;6(7):766-80 [PMID: 11067374]
  16. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999 Sep;123(9):817-21 [PMID: 10458830]
  17. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999 Feb;20(2):70-3 [PMID: 9951600]
  18. Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):209-13 [PMID: 9479342]
  19. Cancer. 1999 Jun 25;87(3):105-12 [PMID: 10385440]
  20. JAMA. 1999 May 5;281(17):1605-10 [PMID: 10235153]
  21. JAMA. 1989 Feb 3;261(5):737-43 [PMID: 2642983]
  22. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000 Jan;22(1):52-9 [PMID: 10613975]
  23. Med J Aust. 1997 Nov 3;167(9):466-9 [PMID: 9397059]

MeSH Term

Cytodiagnosis
Female
Humans
Mass Screening
Papanicolaou Test
Reproducibility of Results
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Vaginal Smears

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0=ThinPrepconventionalncases0smearcervicalPapscreeningsmearsdiagnosesstudycytology5428sampleslideblindedconcordantreviewInitialcorrelatedconsensustestlesionsLSILLSIL+detectedslidesP18%ratiomethodprimarycanceraimsix-centresplit-samplecomparefluid-basedPapanicolaouSixcytopathologylaboratories35gynaecologistsparticipatedpatientsmetinclusioncriteriaage>18yearsoldintactcervixinformedconsentusedfirstpreparesamplingdevicerinsedPreservCytvialmadeScreeningpairsnon-negative101non-concordant2065%randomnegative272underwentoneindependentpathologistpanel6investigatorsresultscytologicalDifferencesdiseasedetectionevaluatedusingMcNemar'sinitial29%ASCUS39%low-gradesquamousintraepithelialsevere001including50%high-gradeSILHSILASCUS:SILlower115:13287:189:9495:1trendobservedASCUS/AGUS:LSILIndependentconfirmed145initially041TestaccuratepotentialoptimizeeffectivenessLiquid-basedscreening:multi-centre

Similar Articles

Cited By