Short interval between two Pap smears: effect on the result of the second smear? A prospective randomized trial

Kolben, T; Bergauer, F.; Moeckel, Jochen; Boettcher, Berit; Thaler, Christian J.; Crispin, Alexander; Dannecker, Christian; Mahner, Sven; Gallwas, Julia

doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4369-x

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their study was performed on women undergoing routine screening, while our study assessed women who had already undergone routine screening and were referred to follow‐up. It has been suggested that performing multiple cervical cell collection procedures on the same patient in a short period of time has a tendency to increase false‐negative results because it may take several weeks for abnormal epithelial tissues to recover and yield a sufficient quantity of abnormal cells to be detected at follow‐up 29 . This could contribute to the lower sensitivity observed in our study, in which the period between referral cytology and collection of our samples was about 84 days.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…It has been suggested that performing multiple cervical cell collection procedures on the same patient in a short period of time has a tendency to increase false-negative results because it may take several weeks for abnormal epithelial tissues to recover and yield a sufficient quantity of abnormal cells to be detected at follow-up. 29 This could contribute to the lower sensitivity observed in our study, in which the period between referral cytology and collection of our samples was about 84 days. The Wong et al 16 study also implemented a score category in which an abnormal score result was treated as a positive test.…”

Section: Ta B L E 3 Sensitivity and Specificity Of Individual Ploidy ...mentioning

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

DNA image cytometry parameters to identify high‐grade cervical lesions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Evaluate the performance of different DNA image cytometry (DNA-ICM) ploidy parameters in the categorisation of DNA-ICM results and identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (≥ CIN2).Methods: Cervical samples from 232 women were collected for DNA-ICM analysis and biopsy confirmation. Five DNA parameters were used to define DNA aneuploidy: number of cells with exceeding events (EE) over 2.5cEE, 4cEE, 5cEE and 9cEE, and aneuploid stemlines. DNA-ICM results were categorised as normal, suspicious, and abnormal.Results: For individual DNA ploidy parameters, sensitivity values for 50 cells with 2.5cEE, 45 cells with 4cEE, 1 cell with 9cEE and aneuploid stemline were 72.95%.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Ta B L E 3 Sensitivity and Specificity Of Individual Ploidy ...mentioning

confidence: 77%

DNA image cytometry parameters to identify high‐grade cervical lesions

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Samples from this study were collected at the time of colposcopy and the mean time interval between referral cytology result and sample collection was close to 3 months. It has been suggested that sample collection for time intervals less than 3 months might increase the indicence of false‐negative results, 23 which could explain the lower sensitivity of HR‐HPV in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

DNA ploidy measurement and human papillomavirus in abnormal cervical cytology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the efficacy of high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) and DNA image cytometry (DNA‐ICM) status for identifying high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (≥CIN2). Methods This cross‐sectional study was performed in women undergoing follow‐up procedure after a previous abnormal cervical cytology. Cervical cells were collected for HPV detection and DNA ploidy measurement. Biopsy samples were taken for histological confirmation. Sensitivity and specificity values for ≥CIN2 detection with HR‐HPV and DNA‐ICM were determined. Results HR‐HPV was present in 74.5% of the women. The most frequent HPV infection was HPV 16, followed by HPV 31, 33 and 58. Aneuploidy was observed in 60.6% of all cases. Referral cytology revealed 78.0% sensitivity and 68.6% specificity for detecting a ≥CIN2 lesion. The HR‐HPV test alone showed 92.7% sensitivity, albeit it was not statistically different from DNA‐ICM (88.1%, P > .05). Positivity for HPV or DNA‐ICM resulted in 100% sensitivity. Higher specificity was observed for the combination of HR‐HPV and DNA‐ICM (88.6%), with no difference from DNA‐ICM alone (85.7%, P > .05). Conclusion DNA‐ICM or HR‐HPV positivity identified all cases of ≥CIN2 in women undergoing follow‐up procedure after a previous abnormal cervical cytology. Routine cervical cancer screening could be improved by the incorporation of DNA‐ICM as a complementary method to primary screening to identify which women need closer follow‐up.

show abstract