The Korean Journal of Cytopathology (대한세포병리학회지)

The Korean Society for Cytopathology (대한세포병리학회)
권호 표지

A Comparision of Surepath$^{TM}$ Liquid-Based Smear with a Conventional Smear for Cervicovaginal Cytology-with Reference to a Histological Diagnosis

자궁경부 조직 진단을 기준으로 Surepath$^{TM}$ 액상세포검사와 고식적 직접도말 자궁경부 세포검사법의 비교

  • Lee, Kyung-Chul (Department of Hospital Pathology The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jung, Chan-Kwon (Department of Hospital Pathology The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jung, Eun-Sun (Department of Hospital Pathology The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Choi, Yeong-Jin (Department of Hospital Pathology The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Jong-Sup (Department of Gynecology, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Kyo-Young (Department of Hospital Pathology The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Lee, Ah-Won (Department of Hospital Pathology The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 이경철 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 병원병리학교실) ;
  • 정찬권 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 병원병리학교실) ;
  • 정은선 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 병원병리학교실) ;
  • 최영진 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 병원병리학교실) ;
  • 박종섭 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 산부인과학교실) ;
  • 이교영 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 병원병리학교실) ;
  • 이아원 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 병원병리학교실)
  • Published : 2007.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was performed to compare Surepath$^{TM}$ liquid-based smear and a conventional cervicovaginal smear with reference to a histological diagnosis. A hybrid capture test (HCII) was also performed and analyzed. We collected matched cases for cervicovaginal cytology-histology: 207 cases for conventional cytology (CC) and 199 cases for liquid-based cytology (LBC). HCII was performed in 254 patients. When a cytological diagnosis of ASCUS or above (ASCUS+) is classified as positive and a histological diagnosis of LSIL+ is classified as positive, the sensitivity and specificity for LBC was 91.7% and 75.9%, respectively and the sensitivity and specificity for CC was 62.6% and 96.1%, respectively. When a cytological and histological diagnosis of LSIL+ is classified as positive, the sensitivity and specificity for LBC was 77.5 and 96.6%, respectively and the sensitivity and specificity for CC was 49.7% and 100%, respectively. When a histological diagnosis of LSIL+ is classified as positive, the sensitivity and specificity for HCII was 78.9% and 78.1%, respectively. The concordance ratio between the cytological and histological diagnosis was 80.4% (kappa=76.0) for LBC and 56.5% (kappa=55.1) for CC. LBC is more sensitive and less specific then CC, as a cytological cutoff level of ASCUS, but more sensitive and equally specific, as a cytological cutoff level LSIL or HSIL. LBC is more reliable with a high concordance ratio between the cytological and histological diagnosis.

Keywords

References

  1. Ministry of health and welfare. Annual report of the central cancer registry in Korea. 2002
  2. Mok JE, Lee DH, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH. Clinical analysis of 1058 patients with uterine cervical cancer. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2001;44:101-13
  3. Montz FJ, Farber FL, Bristow RE, Comelison T. Impact of increasing Papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: A modeled cost and outcomes analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:781-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01322-9
  4. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer 1999;80:827-41 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990315)80:6<827::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-P
  5. Fetherston WC. False-negative cytology in invasive cancer of the cervix. Clinical Obstet Gynecol 1983;26:929
  6. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR. False-negative results in cervical cytology studies. Acta Cytol 1985;29:1043-6
  7. Dodd LG, Sneige N, Villarreal Y, et al. Quality-assurance study of simultaneously sampled non-correlating cervical cytology and biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:138-44 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.2840090206
  8. Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears, including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol 1998;42:189-97 https://doi.org/10.1159/000331545
  9. Lorincz AT, Temple GF, Kurman RJ, Jenson AB, Lancaster WD. Oncogenic association of specific human papillomavirus types with cervical neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987;79:671-7
  10. Lee JR, Seop SE, Lee JH, et al. Clinical significance of HPV DNA test for management of patients with diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2003;46:268-75
  11. Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPep Pap test with the conventional Pap test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytopathol 2001;45:709-14
  12. Carpenter AB, Davey DD. Thinprep Pap Test: Performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999;87:105-12
  13. Lim YK, Lim JC, Kim JH et al. Comparison of efficacy between MonoPrep$^{\circledR}$ and Papanicolaou smear for cervical cancer screening. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:109-17
  14. Jang J, Kim J, Cho KJ, Khang SK, Nam JH, Gong G. A comparision of AutoCyte PREP with matched conventional smear in cervicovaginal cytology. Korean J Cytopathol 2002;13:8-13
  15. Jeon YK, Kim OR, Park KW, Kang SB, Park IA. Liquidbased cytology using MonoPrep2(TM) system in cervicovaginal cytology: comparative study with conventional Pap smear and histology. Korean J Cytopathol 2004;15:33-39
  16. Park JM, Lee JG, Suh IS. Clinical efficacy of manual liquidbased cervicovaginal cytology preparation: Comparative study with conventional Papanicolaou test. Korean J Cytopathol 2005;16:10-7
  17. La YH, Jo GC, Han ST, et al. A comparative analysis of cervical Pap smears prepared by conventional and ThinPrep method. Korean J Obstet Gynecol 2000;43:1450-1458
  18. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:215-9 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/101.2.215
  19. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, James LP, Berger BM, Bonfiglio TA. ThinPrep processor: Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/101.2.209
  20. Paillo JL, Zarka MA, St. John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep pap test in clinical practice: A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998;42:203-8 https://doi.org/10.1159/000331547
  21. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. J Reprod Med 2000;45:912-6
  22. Klinkamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Posier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 2003;99:263-71 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11673
  23. Abulafia O. Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:137-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00176-8
  24. Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D. Comparison of the SurePathTM Liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multicenter Direct-to Vial study. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2001;102:269-79
  25. Colgan TJ, Mclachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seidenfeld AM, Mai VM. Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-Surepath in the Ontario screening program. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2004;102:362-7
  26. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening: Results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical cancer. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999;87:48-55
  27. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003;326:733-7 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7392.733
  28. Taylor S, Kuhn L, Dupree W, et al. Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer 2006;118:957-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21434
  29. Vassilakos P, Saurel J, Rondez R. Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte PREP liquid-based reparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol 1999:43:65-8 https://doi.org/10.1159/000330870
  30. Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC. Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smear. A paired comparison study on cervical Cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1136-42 https://doi.org/10.1159/000333971
  31. Weintraub J, Morabia A. Efficacy of a liquid-based Thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:52-9 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(200001)22:1<52::AID-DC14>3.0.CO;2-#
  32. Wachtel MS, Boon ME, Korporaal H, Kok LP. Human papillomavirus testing as a cytology gold standard: comparing Surinam with the Netherlands. Modern Pathol 2005;18:349-53 https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800242