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
1.
Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B: Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308–317.
2.
Taylor S, Kuhn L, Dupree W, Denny L, De Souza M, Wright TC Jr: Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer 2006;118:957–962.
3.
Maccallini V, Angeloni C, Caraceni D, Fortunato C, Venditti MA, Di Gabriele G, Antonelli C, Lattanzi A, Puliti D, Ciatto S, Confortini M, Sani C, Zappa M: Comparison of the conventional cervical smear and liquid-based cytology: results of a controlled, prospective study in the Abruzzo Region of Italy. Acta Cytol 2008;52:568–574.
4.
Celik C, Gezginç K, Toy H, Findik S, Yilmaz O: A comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008;100:163–166.
5.
Sykes PH, Harker DY, Miller A, Whitehead M, Neal H, Wells JE, Peddie D: A randomized comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting. BJOG 2008;115:1375–1381.
6.
Longatto-Filho A, Pereira SM, Di Loreto C, Utagawa ML, Makabe S, Sakamoto Maeda MY, Marques JA, Santoro CL, Castelo A: DSC liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation. Gynecol Oncol 2005;97:497–500.
7.
Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C, Ghiringhello B, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, Parisio F, Pojer A, Schiboni ML, Sintoni C, Zorzi M, Segnan N, Confortini M: Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;335:28–34.
8.
Bergeron C, Fagnani F: Performance of a new liquid-based cervical screening technique in the clinical setting of a large French laboratory. Acta Cytol 2003;47:753–761.
9.
Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo U, Ng AWY: Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smear: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 2003;99:331–335.
10.
Sasieni P, Fielder H, Rose B: Liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology. Lancet 2006;367:1481–1483.
11.
Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, Henry MR, Schwartz MR, Eversole GM, Tench WD, Fatheree LA, Souers RJ, Wilbur DC: Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Gynecologic Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1912–1916.
12.
Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, Saville AM: Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classification, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122–132.
13.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, Bulten J, Arbyn M: Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:1757–1764.
14.
Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM: Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:137–144.
15.
Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF: Hanselaar AG: Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 2003;99:263–271.
16.
Monsonego J, Autillo-Touati A, Bergeron C, Dachez R, Liaras J, Saurel J, Zerat L, Chatelain P, Mottot C: Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study. Br J Cancer 2001;84:360–366.
17.
Strander B, Andersson-Ellström A, Milsom I, Rådberg T, Ryd W: Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer 2007;111:285–291.
18.
Obwegeser JH, Brack S: Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001;45:709–714.
19.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J: Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1327–1334.
20.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J: Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167–177.
21.
Eddy D: ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup. CA Cancer J Clin 1980;30: 193–240.
22.
Morell ND, Taylor JR, Snyder RN, Ziel HK, Saltz A, Willie S: False-negative cytology rates in patients in whom invasive cervical cancer subsequently developed. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:41–45.
23.
Depudt CE, Benoy IH, Bailleul EJ, Vandepitt J, Vereecken AJ, Bogers JJ: Improved endocervical sampling and HPV viral load detection by Cervex-Brush Combi. Cytopathology 2006;17:374–381.
24.
Bigras G, Rieder MA, Lambercy JM, Kunz B, Chatelain JP, Reymond O, Comaz D: Keeping collection device in liquid medium is mandatory to ensure optimized liquid-based cervical cytologic sampling. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7:168–174.
25.
Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, Meijer CJ, Hoyer H, Ratmam S, Szarewski A, Birembaut P, Kulasingam S, Sasieni P, Ifuner T: Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006;119:1095–1101.
26.
Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Palma PD, Del Mistro A, Ghiringhello B, Girlando S, Gillio-Tos A, De Marco L, Naldoni C, Pierotti P, Rizzolo R, Schincaglia P, Zorzi M, Zappa M, Segnan N, Cuzick J: Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:249–257.
© 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.