Objective: This study sought to ascertain the significance of augmented high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) detection by Pap test using both conventional smear and liquid-based cytology (LBC) in a high-risk population. Study Design: We conducted a direct-to-vial study to compare the diagnostic performance of Pap smear versus LBC in a high-risk population of women referred for colposcopy at a gynecologic ambulatory clinic at the Barretos Cancer Hospital in Brazil during 2011. Results: The detection of both low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSILs) and HSILs was significantly greater (p = 0.04 and p = 0.033, respectively) in the LBC arm [84 LSIL cases (5.7%) and 148 HSIL cases (10.1%)] than in the conventional smear arm [66 LSIL cases (4.1%) and 126 HSIL cases (7.9%)]; however, no differences were found for invasive squamous carcinoma or adenocarcinoma (p = 0.678). Of 3,071 women who were examined cytologically (1,604 conventional preparations and 1,467 LBC) and colposcopically, biopsies were available for 279 conventional preparations (17.6%) and 325 LBC preparations (22.2%). No significant differences were found between the methods with respect to diagnostic performance. Conclusion: LBC was significantly superior to conventional smears for the detection of LSILs and HSILs, but these results did not influence biopsy confirmation. Both methods showed similar performances with high positive predictive values but very low sensitivities.

Keywords:
Pap test, Cytological screening, Liquid-based cytology, SurePath™, Cytopathology
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.