M. A. Duggan, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Room C1135, Foothills Hospital, 1403, 29th Street, NW, Calgary, T2N2 Y9 Alberta, Canada.
Tel.: (403) 944 4763; Fax: (403) 944 1460;
E-mail: [email protected]

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Objective: To compare the frequency of Pap test results in a prospective series of direct to vial ThinPrep tests to a cohort of conventionally prepared tests. To follow-up all test results for a minimum of 2 years and assess performance based on this outcome.

Methods: All women presenting for either routine screening or colposcopic examination in 2001 were enrolled in the ThinPrep cohort. A similar, population of conventionally prepared tests was extracted from the year 2000 laboratory data. Information on all concurrent and follow-up cervical specimens over the ensuing 2 years was retrieved.

Results: The ThinPrep cohort comprised 2288 Pap tests and the conventional, 2211. The frequency of normal [within normal limits (WNL) and benign cellular changes (BCC)] results in the ThinPrep cohort was 6% lower and the frequency of abnormal [≥atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)] results was 6.8% higher. Respective ThinPrep and conventional cohort results were 1156 (51%) and 1291 (58%) WNL, 625 (27%) and 561 (25%) BCC, 101 (4%) and 65 (3%) ASCUS, 21 (1%) and 2 (0.1%) atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance, 301 (13%) and 224 (10%) low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), and 74 (3%) and 40 (2%) high-grade SIL (HSIL) (P < 0.0001). Follow-up was available for nearly 80% of each cohort. LSIL or higher was confirmed in 57.5% (n = 266) of the abnormal ThinPrep and 60.9% (n = 190) of the abnormal conventional tests. The ThinPrep yield of confirmed tests however was almost 50% higher than the conventional test.

Conclusion: In this population, ThinPrep was superior to the conventional Pap test.

References

1 Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990: 113: 214–26.
10.7326/0003-4819-113-3-214
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). World wide cancer incidence statistics. Age-standardized incidence rates and standard errors [WWW document]. Canada: Cervix Uterus. 1997 URL http://www.jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/searchform [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
3 Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap Test Accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 141: 680–9.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117485
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Zahniser DJ, Hurley AA. Automated slide preparation system for the clinical laboratory. Cytometry 1996; 26: 60–4.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0320(19960315)26:1<60::AID-CYTO9>3.0.CO;2-K
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Linder J, Zahniser D. The ThinPrep pap test. A review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 30–8.
10.1159/000332302
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG et al. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 278–84.
10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00228-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999; 87: 48–55.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990425)87:2<48::AID-CNCR2>3.0.CO;2-D
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CR. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust 1997; 167: 466–9.
10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb126672.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 20: 70–3.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199902)20:2<70::AID-DC5>3.0.CO;2-E
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Weintraub J, Morabia A. Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer. Diagn Cytopathol., 2000; 22: 52–9.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(200001)22:1<52::AID-DC14>3.0.CO;2-#
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999; 123: 817–21.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 209–13.
10.1159/000331548
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Corkhill M, Knapp D, Hutchinson ML. Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula collection procedure. J Low Genit Tract Dis 1998; 2: 12–6.
10.1097/00128360-199801000-00003
Google Scholar
14 Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 203–8.
10.1159/000331547
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Liquid-based cytology for cervical screening [WWW document]. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2002. MSAC reference 12a. URL http://www.msac.gov.au/pdfs/msacrefl2a.pdf [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
16 Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature [WWW document]. NZHTA Report 2000: 3. URL http://www.nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/nzhtainfo/csv3nl.pdf [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
17 Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology screening for cervical cancer: review of existing guidance number 5 [Final appraisal determination] [WWW document]. London: The Institute; 2003. URL http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/FAD_LBC.pdf [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
18 Noorani HZ, Brown A, Skidmore B, Stuart GCE. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening [WWW document]. Technology report no. 40. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2003. URL http://www.ccohta.ca [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
19 Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 709–14.
10.1159/000328292
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Marlborough MA. ThinPrep Processor. Operator's Manual. Boxborough, MA: Cytyc Corporation; 1992.
Google Scholar
21 Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996; 120: 523–31.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 101: 215–9.
10.1093/ajcp/101.2.215
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 308–17.
10.1067/mob.2001.116736
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Auger M, Barwick H, Stanimir G et al. The ThinPrep pap test: clinical comparison study in a high-risk population. Acta Cytol 2001; 45: 816 (Abstract).
Google Scholar
25 Benoit JL, Ezzat WM, Murray RB. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in a Canadian screening population. Pathol Int 2000; 50 (Suppl.): 53A (Abstract).
Google Scholar
26 Alberta Cancer Registry. Cancer in Alberta: A Regional Picture [WWW document]. 2004. URL http://www.cancerboard.ab.ca [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
27 The Report of the Medical Officer of Health, Calgary Health Region. The health of the region [WWW document]. 2005. URL http://www.calgaryheathregion.ca [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
28 Alberta Medical Association. Guidelines for screening for cervical cancer: revised [WWW document]. 2002 URL http://www.albertadoctors.org [accessed 4 June 2005].
Google Scholar
29 Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002; 287: 2120–9.
10.1001/jama.287.16.2120
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500–5.
10.1001/jama.285.11.1500
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Renshaw AA, Young NA, Birdsong GG et al. Comparison of performance of conventional and ThinPrep gynecologic preparations in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004; 128: 17–22.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume17, Issue2

April 2006

Pages 73-81

Comparative study of the ThinPrep Pap test and conventional cytology results in a Canadian cohort

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Comparative study of the ThinPrep Pap test and conventional cytology results in a Canadian cohort

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information