A new technique for cervical cancer screening, which is being widely introduced in the United States and other countries, is no more accurate than the existing technique, according to research by Elizabeth Davey and colleagues published in The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com).

In a meta-analysis of previously published data they show that liquid-based cytology (LBC) does no better than traditional Pap smears in discriminating the most serious cervical lesions and does not result in fewer failed tests. This is despite claims to the contrary from the director of the UK's Cancer Screening Programmes, Julietta Patnick: “The latest statistics show that LBC has reduced the rate of inadequate results by up to 90% in the first three laboratories in England where it was introduced” (http://news.bbc.co.uk, 13 January 2006).

The study's authors also point out that only 4 of the 56 published studies were of sufficient statistical power to distinguish between the techniques. This inadequacy led Jorg Obwegeser and Volker Schneider to comment that “...enthusiasm for new technology should not replace proper study design” (http://www.reuters.com, 12 January 2006).

However, others have pointed out that LBC has other advantages over traditional smears. According to Herman Kattlove of the American Cancer Society “The reason everyone is turning to liquid-based cytology is because you can [also] do the HPV test, so a woman doesn't have to come back for another test” (http://www.klastv.com, 13 January 2006). In addition, Julietta Patnick pointed out that “Once LBC is fully implemented, women will also receive their results faster, reducing anxiety and uncertainty” (http://news.bbc.co.uk, 13 January 2006).

Stephanie Blank of New York University summed up reaction to the study, saying that it “...does not dismiss liquid-based cytology” (http://www.klastv.com, 13 January 2006).