Objective: To clarify the performance of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and conventional methods of preparing cervical specimens for cytological screening. Study Design: We studied 236,511 patients who participated in a population-based cervical cancer screening program conducted in the Niigata prefecture between 2005 and 2008. The percentage of unsatisfactory specimens and the disease detection rate were compared between specimens prepared by LBC and conventional methods. Results: (1) The LBC method demonstrated a significantly lower percentage of unsatisfactory specimens than the conventional method (1.38 and 11.45%, respectively; p < 0.01). (2) Among the initial women, tumor lesions were detected in 0.57% of those examined with the LBC method, which was significantly higher than the positivity rate of those examined with the conventional method (0.25%; p < 0.05). Among the women with repeat screening, disease was detected in 0.08% of those examined with LBC twice, which was significantly lower than the positivity rates for those examined with the conventional method followed by the LBC method (0.11%) or the conventional method twice (0.16%; p < 0.05). Conclusion: The LBC method is significantly more useful than the conventional method in terms of the low adequacy rate and the high detection rate of cancer in cervical cancer screening in a localized area in Japan.

Keywords:
Cervical cancer screening, Cervical cytology, Liquid-based cytology, Screening
© 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.