OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is the comparison of the results of conventional smear (CC) technique and liquidbased cytology (LBC) technique used as cervical cancer screening methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The results of 47954 patients submitted to smear screening in our gynecology clinic between January 2008 and December 2014 have been studied. The smear results have been divided into two groups CC and LBC according to the technique used. RESULTS: When considering the distribution within CC group, the results were as follows: intraepithelial cell abnormalities 2,0% (n=619), insufficient sample for analysis 2,1% (n=660), Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) 1.8% (n=554), Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL) 0.1% (n=35), High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) 0.1% (n=16), Atypical squamous cells - cannot exclude HGSIL (ASC-H) 0.029% (n=9), Atypical glandular cells- not other wise specified (AGC-NOS) 0.012% (n=4), squamous carcinoma 0.003% (n=1). When considering the distribution in LBC group, the results were as follows: intraepithelial cell abnormalities2.1% (n=357), insufficient sample for analysis 0.9% (n=144), ASC-US 1.8% (n=296), LGSIL 0.2% (n=38), HGSIL 0.1% (n=8), ASC-H 0.1% (n=10), AGC-NOS 0.017% (n=3), squamous carcinoma 0.011% (n=2). CONCLUSIONS: Although the rates of epithelial cell abnormalities are similar for both tests, LSIL results are more frequently observed in LBC technique. In LBC technique, the number of insufficient sample for analysis is quite low compared to CC group and thus constitutes an advantage.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study is the comparison of the results of conventional smear (CC) technique and liquidbased cytology (LBC) technique used as cervical cancer screening methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The results of 47954 patients submitted to smear screening in our gynecology clinic between January 2008 and December 2014 have been studied. The smear results have been divided into two groups CC and LBC according to the technique used. RESULTS: When considering the distribution within CC group, the results were as follows: intraepithelial cell abnormalities 2,0% (n=619), insufficient sample for analysis 2,1% (n=660), Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) 1.8% (n=554), Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL) 0.1% (n=35), High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL) 0.1% (n=16), Atypical squamous cells - cannot exclude HGSIL (ASC-H) 0.029% (n=9), Atypical glandular cells- not other wise specified (AGC-NOS) 0.012% (n=4), squamous carcinoma 0.003% (n=1). When considering the distribution in LBC group, the results were as follows: intraepithelial cell abnormalities2.1% (n=357), insufficient sample for analysis 0.9% (n=144), ASC-US 1.8% (n=296), LGSIL 0.2% (n=38), HGSIL 0.1% (n=8), ASC-H 0.1% (n=10), AGC-NOS 0.017% (n=3), squamous carcinoma 0.011% (n=2). CONCLUSIONS: Although the rates of epithelial cell abnormalities are similar for both tests, LSIL results are more frequently observed in LBC technique. In LBC technique, the number of insufficient sample for analysis is quite low compared to CC group and thus constitutes an advantage.