Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of a new liquid-based cytological procedure in a population screening program for cervix cancer. Subjects and Methods: Subjects were 1,000 women who underwent primary screening at the Kanagawa Health Service Association. The cytological specimens obtained by either cotton stick and Cytobrush® or Cervex-Brush® were processed using the Thinlayer Advanced Cytology Assay System (TACAS™), following the manufacturer’s instructions. Results: (1) Cells were evenly distributed on specimens and stained evenly; (2) shrinkage of cells was 5% based on measurement of the nuclear diameters of granulocytes in comparison with those of the conventional procedure; (3) incidences of cells that occupied the whole area, 1/20≤, 1/4≤, 1/4> of the observation fields were 58.8, 26.2, 12.0 and 3.0%, respectively; (4) number of the squamous cells in cases with 1/4> was <5,000, in which specimen cells were correctly obtained from the squamocolumnar junction except in 3 cases (0.3%); (5) bleeding at cellular sampling was 5%, but did not disturb cell analysis; (6) inflammation caused by organisms was easily diagnosed; (7) detection rate of abnormal cytology was 4.3%, including ASC-US in 2.8% and ASC-H in 0.1%. Conclusion: TACAS is a feasible and useful cytological procedure.

Keywords:
Liquid-based procedure, Liquid-based cytology, Thinlayer Advanced Cytology Assay System, Cervical cancer, Screening
1.
Namce KV: Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital: a ten-year experience. Diag Cytopathol 2007;35:148–153.
2.
Akamatsu S, Himeji Y, Ikuta N, et al: Satisfactoriness and disease detection in the screening specimens of cervical cancer – comparison between liquid-based and conventional methods. Jpn J Clin Cytol 2008;47:420–424.
3.
Hutchinson ML, Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, et al: Homogenous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep® Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:215–219.
4.
Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, et al: Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278–284.
5.
Hatch KD, Sheets E, Kennedy A, et al: Multicenter direct-to-vial evaluation of a liquid-based Pap test. J Lower Gen Tract Dis 2004;8:308–312.
6.
Park J, Jung EH, Kim C, et al: Direct-to-vial comparison of a new liquid-based cytology system, liquid-PREP versus the conventional Pap smear. Diag Cytopathol 2007;35:488–492.
7.
Solomon D, Nayar R: The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology, ed 2. New York, Springer, 2004.
8.
Japanese Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Understanding the Reporting Method of Cervical Cytology Based on the Bethesda System (in Japanese). Tokyo, Chugai Med, 2008.
9.
Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology: New Standard Atlas of New Colposcopy (in Japanese). Tokyo, Chugai Med, 2005.
10.
Japanese Association for Promoting Diagnostic Cytology: Questions &amp; Answers for the screening for cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (in Japanese). Tokyo, 2009.
11.
Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al: Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999;87:48–55.
12.
Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al: Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7,932 women. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1616–1623.
13.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists. Number 61, April 2005. Human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:905–918.
14.
Davey E, Barrat A, Irwig L, et al: Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systemic review. Lancet 2006;367:122–132.
15.
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;326:733–737.
16.
Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, et al: Conventional cervical cytology vs. ThinPrep smears. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1136–1142.
17.
Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A, et al: Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol 2001;45:519–524.
18.
Sherman ME, Mendoza M, Lee KR, et al: Performance of liquid-based, thin-layer cervical cytology: correlation with reference diagnoses and human papillomavirus testing. Mod Pathol 1998;11:837–843.
19.
Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer B, et al: Effectiveness of thin-layer preparation vs. conventional Pap smear in a blinded, split-sample study: extended cytologic evaluation. J Reprod Med 2001;46:880–886.
20.
Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, et al: Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening system program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2007;111:285–291.
21.
Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B: Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquid-based cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34,:780–785.
22.
Davey E, d’Assuncao J, Irwig L, et al: Accuracy of reading liquid-based cytology slides using the ThinPrep imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31–35.
23.
Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, et al: Accuracy of liquid-based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2007;335:1–2.
24.
Doyle B, O’Farrell C, Mahoney E, et al: Liquid-based cytology improves productivity in cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology 2006;17:60–64.
25.
Williams AR: Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-months periods. Cytopathology 2006;17:82–85.
26.
Ronco G, Segnan N, Giorge-Rossi P, et al: Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:765–774.
27.
Kirschner B, Simonsen K, Junge J: Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smear and SurePath liquid-based cytology in the Copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer. Cytopathology 2006;17:187–194.
28.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, et al: Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167–177.
29.
McGoogan E, Reith A: Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screening? Overview and evaluation of systems available. Acta Cytol 1996;40:107–119.
30.
Dowie R, Stoykova B, Crawford D, et al: Liquid-based cytology can improve efficiency of cervical smear readers: evidence from timing surveys in two NHS cytology laboratories. Cytopathology 2006;17:65–72.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.