menu

ReachMD

Be part of the knowledge.
Register

ReachMD is even better when
you join the community!
Registration is free and easy.

Register Now

Conventional Cytology and Different Liquid Base Cytology Methods: Are They All Similar in Sensitivity When Detecting Cervical Cancer?

    Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population base...
    • Sponsored by

    • Overview

      Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study

      Kirsten Rozemeijer, Steffie K Naber, Corine Penning, Lucy I H Overbeek, Caspar W N Looman, Inge M C M de Kok, Suzette M Matthijsse, Matejka Rebolj, Folkert J van Kemenade, and Marjolein van Ballegooijen

      BMJ 2017;356:j504

      Abstract:

      Objective: To compare the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed within 72 months after a normal screening sample between conventional cytology and liquid based cytology tests SurePath and ThinPrep.

      Design: Retrospective population based cohort study.

      Setting: Nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), January 2000 to March 2013.

      Population: Women with 5 924 474 normal screening samples (23 833 123 person years).

      Exposure: Use of SurePath or ThinPrep versus conventional cytology as screening test.

      Main outcome measurement: 72 month cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer after a normal screening sample for each screening test. Cox regression analyses assessed the hazard ratios, adjusted for calendar time, age, screening history, and socioeconomic status and including laboratories as random effects.

      Results: The 72 month cumulative cancer incidence was 58.5 (95% confidence interval 54.6 to 62.7) per 100 000 normal conventional cytology samples, compared with 66.8 (56.7 to 78.7) for ThinPrep and 44.6 (37.8 to 52.6) for SurePath. Compared with conventional cytology, the hazard of invasive cancer was 19% lower (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.99) for SurePath, mainly caused by a 27% lower hazard (0.73, 0.57 to 0.93) of a clinically detected cancer. For ThinPrep, the hazard was on average 15% higher (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.95 to 1.38), mainly caused by a 56% higher hazard of a screen detected cancer (1.56, 1.17 to 2.08).

      Conclusions: These findings should provoke reconsideration of the assumed similarity in sensitivity to detect progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between different types of liquid based cytology and conventional cytology.

      Commercial Support:

      This activity is sponsored by BD Life Sciences.

    Facebook Comments

    You must be in to display playlists.

    Get a Dose of ReachMD in Your Inbox
    and Practice Smarter Medicine

    Stay current with the best in medical education.