Objective: It was the aim of this study to compare diagnostic performances of the BD SurePath™ liquid-based Papanicolaou test (LBC) and the conventional Papanicolaou test (CPT) in cervical samples of women from remote rural areas of Brazil. Study Design: Specimens were collected by mobile units provided by Barretos Cancer Hospital. This report evaluates the manual screening arm of the RODEO study. Of 12,048 women seen between May and December 2010, 6,001 were examined using LBC and 6,047 using CPT. Results: Comparative (LBC vs. CPT) outcomes were: all abnormal tests, 2.1 versus 1.0%; ASC-US (atypical squamous cells of unknown significance), 0.7 versus 0.1%; ASC-H (atypical squamous cells with possible high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions) and AGC (atypical glandular cells), 0.4 versus 0.3%; LSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions), 0.7 versus 0.3%; HSIL (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions), 0.4 versus 0.2%, and unsatisfactory, 0.03 versus 0.08%. The LBC arm detected significantly more lesions (ASC-US+) than CPT (p < 0.001); however, when we divided the diagnoses into two groups, ASC-H– (negative/ASC-US/LSIL) and ASC-H+ (ASC-H/AGC/HSIL), the difference was not statistically important (p = 0.213). Conclusions: With inherent difficulties in patient recruitment and patient compliance with cancer screening, best test performance including human papillomavirus test capability are vitally necessary in Brazil’s struggle to reduce cervical cancer.

Keywords:
Cytology, Papanicolaou test, SurePath, Cytological screening, Liquid-based cytology
© 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.