Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 2001 Feb;84(3):360–366. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1588

Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study

J Monsonego 1, A Autillo-Touati 2, C Bergeron 3, R Dachez 4, J Liaras 5, J Saurel 6, L Zerat 7, P Chatelain 8, C Mottot 9
PMCID: PMC2363733  PMID: 11161401

Abstract

The aim of this six-centre, split-sample study was to compare ThinPrep fluid-based cytology to the conventional Papanicolaou smear. Six cytopathology laboratories and 35 gynaecologists participated. 5428 patients met the inclusion criteria (age > 18 years old, intact cervix, informed consent). Each cervical sample was used first to prepare a conventional Pap smear, then the sampling device was rinsed into a PreservCyt vial, and a ThinPrep slide was made. Screening of slide pairs was blinded (n = 5428). All non-negative concordant cases (n = 101), all non-concordant cases (n = 206), and a 5% random sample of concordant negative cases (n = 272) underwent review by one independent pathologist then by the panel of 6 investigators. Initial (blinded) screening results for ThinPrep and conventional smears were correlated. Initial diagnoses were correlated with consensus cytological diagnoses. Differences in disease detection were evaluated using McNemar's test. On initial screening, 29% more ASCUS cases and 39% more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and more severe lesions (LSIL+) were detected on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.001), including 50% more LSIL and 18% more high-grade SIL (HSIL). The ASCUS:SIL ratio was lower for the ThinPrep method (115:132 = 0.87:1) than for the conventional smear method (89:94 = 0.95:1). The same trend was observed for the ASCUS/AGUS:LSIL ratio. Independent and consensus review confirmed 145 LSIL+ diagnoses; of these, 18% more had been detected initially on the ThinPrep slides than on the conventional smears (P = 0.041). The ThinPrep Pap Test is more accurate than the conventional Pap test and has the potential to optimize the effectiveness of primary cervical cancer screening. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com

Keywords: cervical smears, CIN, cervical cancer, ThinPrep cytology, cancer screening

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (85.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bolick D. R., Hellman D. J. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):209–213. doi: 10.1159/000331548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown A. D., Garber A. M. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA. 1999 Jan 27;281(4):347–353. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.4.347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Carpenter A. B., Davey D. D. ThinPrep Pap Test: performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer. 1999 Jun 25;87(3):105–112. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990625)87:3<105::aid-cncr2>3.0.co;2-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dupree W. B., Suprun H. Z., Beckwith D. G., Shane J. J., Lucente V. The promise and risk of a new technology: The Lehigh Valley Hospital's experience with liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer. 1998 Aug 25;84(4):202–207. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980825)84:4<202::aid-cncr4>3.0.co;2-o. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Díaz-Rosario L. A., Kabawat S. E. 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 Sep;123(9):817–821. doi: 10.5858/1999-123-0817-POAFBT. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fender M., Schaffer P., Dellenbach P. Peut-on et faut-il organiser le dépistage du cancer du col de l'utérus en France? A propos des résultats due project pilote "EVE" dans le département du Bas-Rhin. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 1998 Nov;27(7):683–691. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gay J. D., Donaldson L. D., Goellner J. R. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol. 1985 Nov-Dec;29(6):1043–1046. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Guidos B. J., Selvaggi S. M. Use of the Thin Prep Pap Test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999 Feb;20(2):70–73. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0339(199902)20:2<70::aid-dc5>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hopman E. H., Voorhorst F. J., Kenemans P., Meyer C. J., Helmerhorst T. J. Observer agreement on interpreting colposcopic images of CIN. Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Aug;58(2):206–209. doi: 10.1006/gyno.1995.1212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hutchinson M. L., Berger B. M., Farber F. L. Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: the impact of test sensitivity. Am J Manag Care. 2000 Jul;6(7):766–780. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Koss L. G. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA. 1989 Feb 3;261(5):737–743. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lee K. R., Ashfaq R., Birdsong G. G., Corkill M. E., McIntosh K. M., Inhorn S. L. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Aug;90(2):278–284. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00228-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Linder J., Zahniser D. The ThinPrep Pap test. A review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol. 1997 Jan-Feb;41(1):30–38. doi: 10.1159/000332302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Linder J., Zahniser D. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998 Feb;122(2):139–144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Manos M. M., Kinney W. K., Hurley L. B., Sherman M. E., Shieh-Ngai J., Kurman R. J., Ransley J. E., Fetterman B. J., Hartinger J. S., McIntosh K. M. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA. 1999 May 5;281(17):1605–1610. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.17.1605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Papillo J. L., Zarka M. A., St John T. L. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):203–208. doi: 10.1159/000331547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Roberts J. M., Gurley A. M., Thurloe J. K., Bowditch R., Laverty C. R. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust. 1997 Nov 3;167(9):466–469. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb126672.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Sellors J. W., Nieminen P., Vesterinen E., Paavonen J. Observer variability in the scoring of colpophotographs. Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Dec;76(6):1006–1008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Sherman M. E., Schiffman M. H., Lorincz A. T., Herrero R., Hutchinson M. L., Bratti C., Zahniser D., Morales J., Hildesheim A., Helgesen K. Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer. 1997 Apr 25;81(2):89–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Stenkvist B., Bergström R., Eklund G., Fox C. H. Papanicolaou smear screening and cervical cancer. What can you expect? JAMA. 1984 Sep 21;252(11):1423–1426. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang T. Y., Chen H. S., Yang Y. C., Tsou M. C. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology. J Formos Med Assoc. 1999 Jul;98(7):500–505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. 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 Jan;22(1):52–59. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0339(200001)22:1<52::aid-dc14>3.0.co;2-#. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Yeoh G. PS, Chan K. W., Lauder I., Lam M. B. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test in clinical practice: 6-month study of 16,541 cases with histological correlation in 220 cases. Hong Kong Med J. 1999 Sep;5(3):233–239. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES