Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study

This article has been updated

Abstract

The aim of this six-centre, split-sample study was to compare ThinPrep fluid-based cytology to the conventional Papanicolaou smear. Six cytopathology laboratories and 35 gynaecologists participated. 5428 patients met the inclusion criteria (age > 18 years old, intact cervix, informed consent). Each cervical sample was used first to prepare a conventional Pap smear, then the sampling device was rinsed into a PreservCyt vial, and a ThinPrep slide was made. Screening of slide pairs was blinded (n = 5428). All non-negative concordant cases (n = 101), all non-concordant cases (n = 206), and a 5% random sample of concordant negative cases (n = 272) underwent review by one independent pathologist then by the panel of 6 investigators. Initial (blinded) screening results for ThinPrep and conventional smears were correlated. Initial diagnoses were correlated with consensus cytological diagnoses. Differences in disease detection were evaluated using McNemar’s test. On initial screening, 29% more ASCUS cases and 39% more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and more severe lesions (LSIL+) were detected on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.001), including 50% more LSIL and 18% more high-grade SIL (HSIL). The ASCUS:SIL ratio was lower for the ThinPrep method (115:132 = 0.87:1) than for the conventional smear method (89:94 = 0.95:1). The same trend was observed for the ASCUS/AGUS:LSIL ratio. Independent and consensus review confirmed 145 LSIL+ diagnoses; of these, 18% more had been detected initially on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.041). The ThinPrep Pap Test is more accurate than the conventional Pap test and has the potential to optimize the effectiveness of primary cervical cancer screening. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com

Change history

  • 16 November 2011

    This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication

References

  1. Bolick DR and Hellman DJ (1998) Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 42: 209–213

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown AD and Garber AM (1999) Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 281: 347–353

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carpenter AB and Davey DD (1999) ThinPrep® Pap Test™: performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 87: 105–112

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Corkill M, Knapp D and Hutchinson ML (1998) Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula collection procedure. Lower Genital Tract Disease 2: 12–16

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Diaz-Rosario LA and Kabawat SE (1999) Performance of a fluid-based thin layer Pap smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an out-patient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med 123: 817–821

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dupree WB, Suprun HZ, Beckwith DG, Shane JJ and Lucente V (1998) The promise and risk of a new technology: the Lehigh Valley Hospital’s experience with liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 84: 202–207

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 5: Evaluation of Cervical Cytology (February 1999) US Department of Health and Human Services. AHCPR Pub. No. 99–E010

  8. Fender M, Schaffer P and Dellenbach P (1998) Peut-on et faut-il organiser le dépistage du cancer du col de l’utérus en France? [Is it possible and necessary to organise cervical cancer screening in France?]. J Gynaecol Obstet Biol Reprod 27: 683–691

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gay J, Donaldson L and Goellner J (1985) False negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 29: 1043–1046

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guidos BJ and Selvaggi SM (1999) Use of the ThinPrep® Pap test™ in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 20: 70–73

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopman EH, Voorhost FJ, Kenemans P, Meijer CJLM and Helmerhorst TJM (1995) Observer agreement on interpreting colposcopic images of CIN. Gynecol Oncol 58: 206–209

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hutchinson ML, Berger BM and Farber FL (2000) Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: the impact of test sensitivity. Am J of Manag Care 6: 766–780

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB and Ransley JE (1998) Where’s the high-grade neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol 91: 73–76

    Google Scholar 

  14. Koss LG (1989) The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: a triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 261: 737–743

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kurman RJ and Solomon D (1994). The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. Springer-Verlag: New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM and Inhorn SL (1997) Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 90: 278–284

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Linder J and Zahniser D (1997) The ThinPrep Pap Test: a review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol 41: 30–38

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Linder J and Zahniser D (1998) ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 122: 139–144

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Manos MM, Kinney WK and Hurley LB (1999) Identifying women with cervical neoplasia using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 281: 1605–1610

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2000). First work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence,

  21. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2000). NICE technology appraisals: programme of results announced,

  22. Papillo JL, Zarka MA and StJohn TK (1998) Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap Test in clinical practice: a seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 42: 203–208

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R and Laverty CRA (1997) Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap Test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust 167: 466–469

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sancho-Garnier H (1998) Dépistage des cancers du col de l’utérus en France [Screening for cancers of the uterine cervix in France]. Gynécologie-Obstétrique Pratique 105: 1

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sellors JW, Nieminen P, Vesterinen E and Paavonen J (1990) Observer variability in the scoring of colpophotographs. Obstet Gynecol 76: 1006–1008

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sherman ME, Shiffman MH and Lorincz AT (1997) Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathology) 81: 89–97

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stenkvist B, Bergstrom R, Eklund G and Fox CH (1984) Papanicolaou smear screening and cervical cancer: what can you expect?. JAMA 252: 1423–1426

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang T-Y, Chen H-S, Yang Y-C and Tsou M-C (1999) Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology. J Formos Med Assoc 98: 500–505

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Weidmann C, Schaffer P and Hedelin G (1998) L’incidence du cancer du col de l’utérus régresse régulièrement en France [The incidence of cancer of the uterine cervix is regressing steadily in France]. Bull Epid Hebd 5: 17–19

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weintraub J (1997) The coming revolution in cervical cytology: a pathologist’s guide for the clinician. Références en Gynécologie Obstétrique 5: 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  31. Weintraub J and Morabia A (2000) Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol 22: 52–59

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yeoh GPS, Chan KW, Lauder I and Lam MB (1999) Evaluation of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test in clinical practice: 6-month study of 16541 cases with histological correlation in 220 cases. HKMJ 5: 233–239

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Monsonego, J., Autillo-Touati, A., Bergeron, C. et al. Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study. Br J Cancer 84, 360–366 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1588

Download citation

Keywords

  • cervical smears
  • CIN
  • cervical cancer
  • ThinPrep cytology
  • cancer screening

Further reading

Search

Quick links