OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of cervical cytology using conventional smears and SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC). DESIGN: Prospective randomised evaluation of diagnostic test. SETTING: A single institution colposcopy clinic. POPULATION: Women attending first visit colposcopy appointments were offered entry into the study. METHODS: Cervical cytology samples from 913 women of age16-75 years were randomly processed as SurePath LBC or conventional smears. Conventional smears were taken for 453 women and a SurePath LBC taken for 451 women. Cytology results were correlated with colposcopic findings and histology from colposcopic biopsies, treatment and follow up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the sensitivity of SurePath LBC and conventional smears for histologically proven abnormality. Other outcome measures include a comparison of their sensitivity for high-grade abnormalities and their satisfactory rate. RESULTS: Accounting for all randomised samples, there was a trend towards improved sensitivity for SurePath LBC (79.1 versus 73.7%, P = 0.1). However, excluding unsatisfactory cytology (and samples not taken) eliminated this trend; the sensitivity for both LBC and conventional smears for any epithelial abnormality was 81%. With a threshold of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US), both SurePath LBC and conventional smears had a sensitivity of 92% for high-grade lesions. SurePath LBC was less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory (2.7 versus 9.1%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this context, with a threshold of ASC-US, both SurePath LBC and conventional smears offer high sensitivity for the detection of CIN2/3, but SurePath LBC is less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of cervical cytology using conventional smears and SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC). DESIGN: Prospective randomised evaluation of diagnostic test. SETTING: A single institution colposcopy clinic. POPULATION: Women attending first visit colposcopy appointments were offered entry into the study. METHODS: Cervical cytology samples from 913 women of age 16-75 years were randomly processed as SurePath LBC or conventional smears. Conventional smears were taken for 453 women and a SurePath LBC taken for 451 women. Cytology results were correlated with colposcopic findings and histology from colposcopic biopsies, treatment and follow up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the sensitivity of SurePath LBC and conventional smears for histologically proven abnormality. Other outcome measures include a comparison of their sensitivity for high-grade abnormalities and their satisfactory rate. RESULTS: Accounting for all randomised samples, there was a trend towards improved sensitivity for SurePath LBC (79.1 versus 73.7%, P = 0.1). However, excluding unsatisfactory cytology (and samples not taken) eliminated this trend; the sensitivity for both LBC and conventional smears for any epithelial abnormality was 81%. With a threshold of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US), both SurePath LBC and conventional smears had a sensitivity of 92% for high-grade lesions. SurePath LBC was less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory (2.7 versus 9.1%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this context, with a threshold of ASC-US, both SurePath LBC and conventional smears offer high sensitivity for the detection of CIN2/3, but SurePath LBC is less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory.
Authors: 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; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-02-14
Authors: Kirsten Rozemeijer; Corine Penning; Albert G Siebers; Steffie K Naber; Suzette M Matthijsse; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Folkert J van Kemenade; Inge M C M de Kok Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 2.506