Introduction: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has replaced conventional smear (CS) in the world. In this study, through a series with a large number of cases, we aimed to make a comparison and general evaluation in all groups, primarily epithelial abnormalities, according to LBC and CS methods. This study was carried out in a private pathology laboratory located in a metropolitan city, where cytological materials sent from many clinics were examined. Material and Methods: There were 165,915 cases whose smears were examined between 2012 and 2020, most of them conventional (131,224 CS, 34,691 LBC). Cases were evaluated on the basis of the Bethesda 2014 classification and divided into sub-diagnostic categories after they were divided into two main groups as “with epithelial abnormalities” and “without.” χ2 and Fischer’s precision statistical tests were conducted using SPSS 23.0 package. In the CS process, cervical samples were obtained using an endocervical brush and a spatula. Cells were directly spread onto the slides and promptly fixed in 95% ethanol, followed by staining with the standard Papanicolaou stain. For LBC ThinPrep, cervical specimens were gathered using a cervix brush. The brush was washed in a vial and discarded. Finally, cells were isolated through vacuum filtration and transferred to the slide using air pressure. Results: Squamous cell abnormalities (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], atypical squamous cells – cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [ASC-H], low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL], high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL], squamous cell carcinoma, atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance) were reported in 5,696 (3.43%) cases. ASC (ASC-US + ASC-H)/SIL ratio (1.36/2.04) was found to be 0.67 (recommended Bethesda ratio is <3). ASC-US (p < 0.001), ASC-H (p < 0.001), and HSIL(p < 0.001) detection rate of LBC was found to be significantly higher than CS. ASC-US (1.8/1.2), ASC-H (0.08/0.008), and HSIL (0.6/0.3) case ratios of LBC/CS were found to be significantly higher in LBC. LSIL (1.72/1.66) rate was similar. Conclusion: LBC is superior to CS in detecting epithelial lesions. In addition to being used as a screening method, it is clear that it makes a great contribution to reducing cervical carcinomas due to HPV typing. Definitive comments regarding comparison of methods on reactive changes and microorganism detection are challenging. Preanalytical factors might account for these situations.

1.
GLOBOCAN World Health Organization
. [Cited 2023 July 16]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/overtime/en/dataviz.
2.
Vilos
GA
.
The history of the papanicolaou smear and the odyssey of george and andromache papanicolaou
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
1998
;
91
(
3
):
479
83
. .
3.
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
(
5
):
285
91
. .
4.
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
(
16
):
1757
64
. .
5.
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
(
1
):
167
77
. .
6.
Davey
E
,
Barratt
A
,
Irwig
L
,
Chan
SF
,
Macaskill
P
,
Mannes
P
, et al
.
Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review
.
Lancet
.
2006
;
367
(
9505
):
122
32
. .
7.
Rozemeijer
K
,
Naber
SK
,
Penning
C
,
Overbeek
LIH
,
Looman
CWN
,
de Kok
IMCM
, 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
. .
8.
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
(
1
):
15
25
. .
9.
Basu
P
,
Ponti
A
,
Anttila
A
,
Ronco
G
,
Senore
C
,
Vale
DB
, et al
.
Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in the European Union Member States-Summary results from the second European screening report
.
Int J Cancer
.
2018
;
142
(
1
):
44
56
. .
10.
Nayar
R
,
Wilbur
D
.
The Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology
.
Switzerland
:
Springer
;
2015
. .
11.
Ito
K
,
Kimura
R
,
Konishi
H
,
Ozawa
N
,
Yaegashi
N
,
Ohashi
Y
, et al
.
A comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology using data for cervical cancer screening from the Japan Cancer Society
.
Jpn J Clin Oncol
.
2020
;
50
(
2
):
138
44
. .
12.
Pankaj
S
,
Nazneen
S
,
Kumari
S
,
Kumari
A
,
Kumari
A
,
Kumari
J
, et al
.
Comparison of conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology: a study of cervical cancer screening at a tertiary care center in Bihar
.
Indian J Cancer
.
2018
;
55
(
1
):
80
3
. .
13.
Budak
,
Senturk
MB
,
Kaya
C
,
Akgol
S
,
Bademkiran
MH
,
Tahaoğlu
AE
, et al
.
A comparative study of conventional and liquid-based cervical cytology
.
Ginekol Pol
.
2016
;
87
(
3
):
190
3
. .
14.
de Oliveira
ACA
,
Domingues
MF
,
Neufeld
PM
,
Fleury
M
,
Nogueira Neto
JF
.
Comparison between conventional cytology and liquid-based cytology in the tertiary Brazilian navy hospital in rio de Janeiro
.
Acta Cytol
.
2020
;
64
(
6
):
539
46
. .
15.
Shobana
R
,
Saranya
B
.
Comparison of conventional papanicolaou smear and liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening
.
Int J Sci Stud
.
2019
;
6
(
12
):
64
73
.
16.
Flores-Hernández
L
,
CordobaGonzalez
V
,
Sa
BM
.
Liquid-based cytology compared to conventional cytology for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a single-center experience
.
J Gynecol Res
.
2018
;
4
(
2
):
206
. .
17.
Longatto Filho
A
,
Pereira
SM
,
Di Loreto
C
,
Utagawa
ML
,
Makabe
S
,
Sakamoto Maeda
MY
, et al
.
DCS 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
(
2
):
497
500
. .
18.
Hashmi
AA
,
Naz
S
,
Ahmed
O
,
Yaqeen
SR
,
Irfan
M
,
Asif
MG
, et al
.
Comparison of liquid-based cytology and conventional papanicolaou smear for cervical cancer screening: an experience from Pakistan
.
Cureus
.
2020
;
12
(
12
):
e12293
. .
19.
Singh
U
,
Anjum
QS
,
Negi
N
,
Singh
N
,
Goel
M
,
Srivastava
K
.
Comparative study between liquid-based cytology and conventional Pap smear for cytological follow up of treated patients of cancer cervix
.
Indian J Med Res
.
2018
;
147
(
3
):
263
7
. .
20.
Kaza
S
,
Renuka
IV
,
Kantham
L
,
Srinath
S
,
Babu
R
.
Comparative study of conventional papanicolaou smears and liquid-based directto- vial thin-layer preparation in the detection of microorganisms in cervical smears
.
IP Arch Cytol Histopathol Res
.
2018
;
3
(
2
):
69
75
.
21.
Singh
VB
,
Gupta
N
,
Nijhawan
R
,
Srinivasan
R
,
Suri
V
,
Rajwanshi
A
.
Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical Pap smears: experience from the first 1,000 split samples
.
Indian J Pathol Microbiol
.
2015
;
58
(
1
):
17
21
. .
22.
Fitzhugh
VA
,
Heller
DS
.
Significance of a diagnosis of microorganisms on pap smear
.
J Low Genit Tract Dis
.
2008
;
12
(
1
):
40
51
. .
23.
Takei
H
,
Ruiz
B
,
Hicks
J
.
Cervicovaginal flora. Comparison of conventional pap smears and a liquid-based thin-layer preparation
.
Am J Clin Pathol
.
2006
;
125
(
6
):
855
9
. .
You do not currently have access to this content.