Objective: To test the performance of a new fixative for pap smear collection for liquid-based cervical cytology, CellPreserv® and compare it with the commercially available, PreservCyt® used in the diagnosis and detection of human papillomavirus (HPV). Methods: Seven hundred twenty five women participated in this study after signing an informed consent. The specimens were collected using a traditional device, agitated in PBS, and equally divided in both fixatives. The slides were prepared routinely, stained by Papanicolaou, examined blindly by 2 cytologists, and reviewed by one cytopathologist. To search for HPV, 1,000 μL from each fixative was taken and processed by polymerase chain reaction. Results: Considering the adequacy of samples, both fixatives had similar results – 0.33 and 0.32% of the cases unsatisfactory for PreservCyt® and CellPreserv®, respectively. Considering the 701 satisfactory cases and comparing the new fixative to the traditional fixative, there was 99.3% concordance between both. The results regarding the HPV detection was 100% concordant between the 2 fixatives. Conclusion: The new methanol-based fixative, CellPreserv®, is cheaper and equally efficient for treating cervical cancer screening and for HPV detection, and can be safely used by the health system prevailing in low-income countries.

Keywords:
Liquid-based cytology, ThinPrep, CellPreserv, Human papillomavirus, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
1.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, et al: Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 302: 1757–1764.
2.
Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D: Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 2004; 102: 269–279.
3.
Beerman H, van Dorst EB, Kuenen-Boumeester V, Hogendoorn PC: Superior performance of liquid-based versus conventional cytology in a population-based cervical cancer screening program. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 572–576.
4.
Longatto-Filho A, Levi JE, Martins TR, Cohen D, Cury L, Villa LL, et al: Critical analyses of the introduction of liquid-based cytology in a public health service of the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Acta Cytol 2015; 59: 273–277.
5.
Colgan TJ, McLachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seidenfeld AM, Mai VM: Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the Ontario screening program. Cancer 2004; 102: 362–367.
6.
Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E: Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4: 1–73.
7.
Weintraub J, Morabia A: Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 2000; 22: 52–59.
8.
Cox JT: History of the use of HPV testing in cervical screening and in the management of abnormal cervical screening results. J Clin Virol 2009; 45(suppl 1):S3–S12.
9.
Albrow R, Kitchener H, Gupta N, Desai M: Cervical screening in England: the past, present, and future. Cancer Cytopathol 2012; 120: 87–96.
10.
Qu W, Jiang G, Cruz Y, Chang CJ, Ho GY, Klein RS, et al: PCR detection of human papillomavirus: comparison between MY09/MY11 and GP5+/GP6+ primer systems. J Clin Microbiol 1997; 35: 1304–1310.
11.
Nayar R, Wilbur DC: The Pap test and Bethesda 2014. Cancer Cytopathol 2015; 123: 271–281.
12.
Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, -McGoogan E, Brewer N: Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8:iii, 1–78.
13.
Beal CM, Salmeron J, Flores YN, Torres L, Granados-Garcia V, Dugan E, et al: Cost analysis of different cervical cancer screening strategies in Mexico. Salud Publica Mex 2014; 56: 429–501.
14.
Simion N, Caruntu ID, Avadanei ER, Balan R, Amalinei C: Conventional cytology versus liquid based cytology in cervical pathology: correspondences and inconsistencies in diagnosis, advantages and limits. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2014; 55: 1331–1337.
15.
Rozemeijer K, Penning C, Siebers AG, Naber SK, Matthijsse SM, van Ballegooijen M, et al: Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates. Cancer Causes Control 2016; 27: 15–25.
16.
Rozemeijer K, Naber SK, Penning C, Overbeek LI, Looman CW, de Kok IM, et al: Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study. BMJ 2017; 356:j504.
17.
Stoler MH; Schiffman M; Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group: Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500–1505.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.