Multicenter Masked Evaluation of AutoCyte PREP Thin Layers with Matched Conventional Smears

Bishop, John W.; Bigner, Sandra H.; Colgan, Terry; Husain, Mujtaba; Howell, Lydia Pleotis; McIntosh, Karen M.; Taylor, Dugald A.; Sadeghi, Masood

doi:10.1159/000331545

Cited by 117 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…MLBC is more sensitive method for the diagnosis of LSIL. Similarly both the methods were sensitive to the same extent for inflammation while MLBC is more specific thus agreeing with the findings of (Berstein et al, 2001;Alves et al, 2004) Regarding increase detection rate, our study found high increased detection rate which was consistent with earlier reports (Austin & Ramzy, 1998;Bishop et al, 1998). There was significant difference in concordance rate between CPS & MLBC Thus LBC showed a significantly higher histologically versus cytological concordance referral rate, as also observed by (Deshou et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Manual Liquid Based Cytology in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer - a Cost Effective Preposition for Scarce Resource Settings

Nandini

Nandish²,

Pallavi³

et al. 2012

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional pap smear (CPS) examination has been the mainstay for early detection of cervical cancer. However, its widespread use has not been possible due to the inherent limitations, like presence of obscuring blood and inflammation, reducing its sensitivity considerably. Automated methods in use in developed countries may not be affordable in the developing countries due to paucity of resources. On the other hand, manual liquid based cytology (MLBC) is a technique that is cost effective and improves detection of precursor lesions and specimen adequacy. Therefore the aim of the study was to compare the utility of MLBC with that of CPS in cervical cancer screening. A prospective study of 100 cases through MLBC and CPS was conducted from October 2009 to July 2010, in a Medical College in India, by two independent pathologists and correlated with histopathology (22 cases). Morphological features as seen through MLBC and CPS were compared. Subsequently, all the cases were grouped based on cytological diagnosis according to two methods into 10 groups and a subjective comparison was made. In order to compare the validity of MLBC with CPS in case of major diagnoses, sensitivity and specificity of the two methods were estimated considering histological examination as the gold standard. Increased detection rate with MLBC was 150%. The concordance rate by LBC/histopathology v/s CPS/histopathology was also improved (86% vs 77%) The percentage agreement by the two methods was 68%. MLBC was more sensitive in diagnosis of LSIL and more specific in the diagnosis of inflammation. Thus, MLBC was found to be better than CPS in diagnosis of precursor lesions. It provided better morphology with increased detection of abnormalities and preservation of specimen for cell block and ancillary studies like immunocytochemistry and HPV detection. Therefore, it can be used as alternative strategy for cervical cancer prevention in limited resource settings

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Manual Liquid Based Cytology in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer - a Cost Effective Preposition for Scarce Resource Settings

Nandini

Nandish²,

Pallavi³

et al. 2012

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nowadays, a number of different LBC techniques are in use worldwide. ThinPrep ® and SurePath™, the prototypes and the most commonly used LBC, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cervical cancer screening in the USA (Lee et al, 1997;Bishop et al, 1998). However, the cost of the original LBC tests is deemed high for the routine use in many developing countries, including Thailand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Siriraj Liquid-Based Cytology: a Single Center Report Concerning over 100,000 Samples

Sangkarat¹,

Laiwejpithaya²,

Rattanachaiyanont³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several large studies on screening populations using split samples or comparison between nonrandomised populations that report a higher sensitivity and lower unsatisfactory rates for SurePath compared with conventional slides. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] However, we have been unable to identify a published, randomised study including colposcopic evaluation of cytologically negative women.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid‐based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting

Sykes

Harker

Miller

et al. 2008

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of cervical cytology using conventional smears and SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC).Design Prospective randomised evaluation of diagnostic test.Setting A single institution colposcopy clinic.Population Women attending first visit colposcopy appointments were offered entry into the study.Methods Cervical cytology samples from 913 women of age 16-75 years were randomly processed as SurePath LBC or conventional smears. Conventional smears were taken for 453 women and a SurePath LBC taken for 451 women. Cytology results were correlated with colposcopic findings and histology from colposcopic biopsies, treatment and follow up.Main outcome measures To compare the sensitivity of SurePath LBC and conventional smears for histologically proven abnormality.Other outcome measures include a comparison of their sensitivity for high-grade abnormalities and their satisfactory rate.Results Accounting for all randomised samples, there was a trend towards improved sensitivity for SurePath LBC (79.1 versus 73.7%, P = 0.1). However, excluding unsatisfactory cytology (and samples not taken) eliminated this trend; the sensitivity for both LBC and conventional smears for any epithelial abnormality was 81%. With a threshold of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US), both SurePath LBC and conventional smears had a sensitivity of 92% for high-grade lesions. SurePath LBC was less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory (2.7 versus 9.1%, P < 0.0001).Conclusions In this context, with a threshold of ASC-US, both SurePath LBC and conventional smears offer high sensitivity for the detection of CIN2/3, but SurePath LBC is less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory.Keywords Cervical cytology, liquid-based cytology, sensitivity, SurePath.Please cite this paper as: Sykes P, Harker D, Miller A, Whitehead M, Neal H, Wells J, Peddie D. A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting.

show abstract

Multicenter Masked Evaluation of AutoCyte PREP Thin Layers with Matched Conventional Smears

Cited by 117 publications

References 19 publications

Manual Liquid Based Cytology in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer - a Cost Effective Preposition for Scarce Resource Settings

Manual Liquid Based Cytology in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer - a Cost Effective Preposition for Scarce Resource Settings

Performance of Siriraj Liquid-Based Cytology: a Single Center Report Concerning over 100,000 Samples

A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid‐based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About