Liquid-based endometrial cytology using SurePath™ is not inferior to suction endometrial tissue biopsy for detecting endometrial malignancies: Midterm report of a multicentre study advocated by Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Abstract
Objective
We conducted a prospective, multicentre study to compare the clinical performance of liquid-based endometrial cytology (LBEC) using SurePath™ with that of suction endometrial tissue biopsy (SETB). This study is officially advocated and reported by the Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. By publishing our midterm data, we intend to disseminate the benefits of LBEC system, using the descriptive reporting format and algorithmic interpretational approach.
Methods
From April 2014 to December 2015, we consecutively assessed 1116 LBEC specimens and 1044 SETB specimens in our five outpatient clinics.
Results
The sensitivity of suction tissue biopsies was 85.2%, whereas the sensitivity of LBEC was 92.2%. The specificity of suction tissue biopsies was 98.9% and that of LBEC was 98.5%. The negative predictive value of LBEC (99.1%) was higher than that of SETB (98.1%), although the difference between these values was not significant.
Conclusions
The clinical performance of LBEC for detecting endometrial malignancies was almost identical to the performance of SETB. This indicates that LBEC was not inferior to SETB for the detection of endometrial cancer. The LBEC is appropriate for various clinical situations as the first-step detecting tool. In addition, it could be used for cancer surveillance for women with signs highly suggestive of endometrial malignancies and in Lynch syndrome patients, on a larger scale.
Abstract
This prospective multicenter study comparing the clinical performance of liquid-based endometrial cytology using SurePathTM with that of the suction endometrial tissue biopsy is the basis for our highlighting the benefits of the liquid-based endometrial cytology system using the descriptive reporting format (the Yokohama System for reporting endometrial cytology) and recommending an algorithmic interpretational approach.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None of the authors listed above has a potential conflict of interest.
