Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey

Abulafia, Ovadia; Pezzullo, John C.; Sherer, David M.

doi:10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00176-8

Cited by 164 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most comparison studies of LBP and CP have documented that LBP offers an increased rate of detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) and improvement of specimen adequacy, particularly in reducing obscuring factors such as background flora and debris (Baker, 2002;Abulafia, 2003). According to our results the diagnosis as NILM, candida, actinomyces, bacterial vaginosis were reported more often with LBP than with CPS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Cervical Cytological Screening Results of 8,495 Cases in Turkey - Common Inflammation but Infrequent Epithelial Cell Abnormalities?

Daloglu

Karakaya²,

Balta³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Cervical Cytological Screening Results of 8,495 Cases in Turkey - Common Inflammation but Infrequent Epithelial Cell Abnormalities?

Daloglu

Karakaya²,

Balta³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Earlier publications found an increased detection rate of HSIL as summarized in several reviews. [5][6][7] More recently, some HTAs and systematic reviews 8,11,12 using stringent criteria did not show superiority of LBC over CC. Additionally, two recent large randomized studies, which were situated within organized screening programs did not observe a higher relative sensitivity of LBC for histologically confirmed CIN compared with CC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Liquid-based CAS: total n cytologically positives: 321 (169 histologically confirmed and 152 imputed). 6 Adjusted for study region. Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; LSIL: low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions; CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; CC: conventional cytology; LBC: liquid-based cytology; CAS: computer-assistance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite numerous scientific studies, the debate on the superiority of LBC over CC is still ongoing. [5][6][7] Health technology assessments (HTA) and meta-analysis reviews as well as two recent, large randomized trials which were conducted in the context of organized screening programs did not find a higher sensitivity of LBC for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and higher (CIN2þ). [8][9][10][11][12] LBC has advantages such as faster reading of slides, fewer unsatisfactory specimens, and the possibility to use residual liquid sample for testing of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and other molecular markers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid‐based cytology and computer assistance

Klug

Neis

Harlfinger³

et al. 2012

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has replaced conventional cytology (CC) for cervical cancer screening in some countries. However, it remains unclear whether LBC is superior to CC. A randomized controlled trial was conducted between August 2007 and March 2009 in Germany to compare LBC, alone and in combination with computer-assisted imaging technology (CAS), to CC in the detection of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The main outcome measures were detection rates, relative sensitivities, positive predictive values (PPVs) and relative PPVs comparing LBC without and with CAS to CC. Primary histological outcome was CIN2 or higher. Included were 20,627 women participating in opportunistic cervical cancer screening at 20 gynecologic practices. The practices were randomized weekly to use LBC (n 5 11,331) or CC (n 5 9,296). Patients with positive findings were invited to expert colposcopy. The relative sensitivity of LBC versus CC using the CIN21 cut-off was 2.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66-4.53). The relative sensitivity of LBC/CAS versus CC for CIN21 was 3.17 (95% CI 1. 94-5.19). The PPV of LBC and CC for CIN21 was 48% and 38%, respectively. The PPV ratio did not differ significantly from unity. Differences between LBC and CC were smaller in some sensitivity and subgroup analyses; however, relative sensitivity of LBC remained increased. LBC without and with CAS compared with CC under the field conditions of an opportunistic screening system had a significantly higher sensitivity for the detection of CIN without deterioration of PPVs. Additional use of CAS did not further improve sensitivity of LBC. V C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Key words: randomized controlled trial, early detection of cancer, uterine cervical neoplasm, Papanicolaou smear, liquid-based cytology, computer-assisted imaging technology Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. Stefanie J. Klug, Jochem K€ onig and Hans Ikenberg had full access to all the data of the study. They take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Hans Ikenberg, Stefanie J. Klug, Klaus J. Neis and Werner Harlfinger take responsibility for the study concept and design. Werner Harlfinger and Klaus J. Neis take responsibility for the acquisition of data. Stefanie J. Klug, Jochem K€ onig, Veronika Weyer and Hans Ikenberg take responsibility for the analysis and interpretation of data. Stefanie J. Klug and Hans Ikenberg take responsibility for the drafting of the manuscript. All are responsible for the critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Jochem K€ onig, Veronika Weyer and Stefanie J. Klug did the statistical analysis. Werner Harlfinger, Klaus J. Neis, Armin Malter and Hans Ikenberg obtained funding. Sibylle Spieth, Friederike Brinkmann-Smetanay and Friedrich Kommoss had the administrative, technical or material support. Study supervision is by Hans Ikenberg, Werner Harlfinger, Klaus J. Neis and Stefanie J. Klug. Stefanie J. Klu...

show abstract

“…The Pap test has been used for cervical cancer screening for more than 50 years, and it has been confirmed as an economic, simple and effective method. However, it has some disadvantages including low sensitivity and high false negative rate (Fahey et al, 1995;Abulafia et al, 2003;Carns and Fadare, 2008;Li et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Pap Test in Combination with ThinPrep Cytological Test in Screening for Cervical Cancer

Chen

Shu²,

Chang³

et al. 2012

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey

Cited by 164 publications

References 38 publications

Cervical Cytological Screening Results of 8,495 Cases in Turkey - Common Inflammation but Infrequent Epithelial Cell Abnormalities?

Cervical Cytological Screening Results of 8,495 Cases in Turkey - Common Inflammation but Infrequent Epithelial Cell Abnormalities?

A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid‐based cytology and computer assistance

Efficacy of Pap Test in Combination with ThinPrep Cytological Test in Screening for Cervical Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About