Liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 5, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 857-871

  Bentz, Joel S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical carcinoma; Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical neoplasms; Cost benefit analysis; Laboratory techniques and procedures; Mass screening; Papanicolaou smear; Screening; SurePath liquid based Papanicolaou test; Vaginal smear

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

AUTOMATION; BIOPSY; CANCER SCREENING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DYSPLASIA; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY; METHODOLOGY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; REVIEW; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; STAINING; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

BIOPSY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 27944506884     PISSN: 14737159     EISSN: 17448352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737159.5.6.857     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer. In: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Williams and Wilkins, MD, USA, 105-117 (1996).
2. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. A review of the literature with methods of evidence-based medicine. Cancer Cytopathol. 99, 263-271 (2003). Review of available ThinPrep® (TP) and SurePath™ studies.
3. Moseley RP, Paget S. Liquid-based cytology: is this the way forward for cervical screening? Cytopathology 13, 71-82 (2002).
4. Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK et al. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. J. Fam Pract. 50(12), 1040-1046 (2001).
5. Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of the ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol. Oncol. 90(1), 137-144 (2003). Quantitative survey of available TP data. Overall, biopsy-proven diagnosis demonstrates that TP has approximately 8% higher sensitivity and 7% higher specificity.
6. Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol. 42(1), 178-184 (1998).
7. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 185(2), 308-317 (2001). Meta-analysis of available TP data.
8. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 132(10), 810-819 (2000). Meta-analysis of available data from conventional smears and TP with colpobiopsy comparison.
9. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol. Assess. 4(8), 1-73 (2000).
10. Bishop JW, Marshall CJ, Bentz JS. New technologies in gynecologic cytology. J. Reprod. Med. 45, 701-719 (2000).
11. Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 56(12), 765-774 (2001).
12. Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Techno. Assess. 8(20),iii, 1-78 (2004). Results of a meta-analysis of the accuracy of cervical cytology that concluded 51% sensitivity for histologic dysplasia.
13. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicalaou testing. JAMA 281(4), 347-353 (1999).
14. ACOG Committee Opinion. New Pap Test Screening Techniques. Number 206, 1998. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 63(3), 312-314 (1998).
15. Hutchinson M, Isenstein L, Goodman A et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep processor: subsampling - a problem with Pap smears. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 101, 215-219 (1994).
16. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inborn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet. Gynecol. 90, 278-284 (1997). Results of a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) trial for TP.
17. Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ et al. Multicenter evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Acta Cytol. 42, 189-197 (1998). Results of FDA trial for SurePath.
18. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P et al. French Society of Clinical Cytology Study Group. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. Br. Med. J. 326(7392), 733 (2003). Split-sample TP study.
19. Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia: a prospective, randomized trial comparing ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol. 45, 709-714 (2001). Direct-to-vial TP study.
20. McGoogan E, Reith A. Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screening? Overview and evaluation of systems available. Acta Cytol. 40, 107-119 (1996).
21. Takahashi M, Naito M. Application of the CytoRich monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology. A prelude to automated primary screening. Acta Cytol. 41(6), 1785-1789 (1997). Split-sample SurePath study.
22. Stevens MW, Nespolon WW, Milne AJ, Rowland R. Evaluation of the CytoRich technique for cervical smears. Diagn. Cytopathol. 18, 236-242 (1998). Split-sample SurePath study.
23. Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BK, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol. 92(4 Pt 2), 727-35 (1998).
24. Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D. Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer Cytopathol. 102, 269-279 (2004). TriPath-sponsored trial with intended clinical use of SurePath, which showed a 64.3% improved detection rate for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or higher.
25. Williamson SL, Hair T, Wadehra V. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening. Cytopathology 8(3), 188-195 (1997). Cervex-Brush used with SurePath liquid-based cytology.
26. Bigras G, Rieder MA, Lambercy JM et al. Keeping collecting device in liquid medium is mandatory to ensure optimized liquid-based cervical cytologic sampling. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 7(3), 168-174 (2003).
27. Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 47(4), 605-610 (2003). Quantitative SurePath specimen cellularity study.
28. Geyer JW, Hancock F, Carrico C, Kirkpatrick M. Preliminary evaluation of Cyto-Rich: an improved automated cytology preparation. Diagn. Cytopathol. 9, 417-422 (1993).
29. Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol. 40, 81-89 (1996).
30. Vassilakos P, Cossali D, Albe X, Alonso L, Hohener R, Puget E. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: emphasis on suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol. 40, 496-500 (1996).
31. Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe JK, Grieves A, Bowditch R. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 19, 239-245 (1997).
32. Wilbur DC, Facik MS, Rutkowski MA, Mulford DK, Atkison KM. Clinical trials of the CytoRich specimen-preparation device for cervical cytology. Preliminary results. Acta Cytol. 41, 24-29 (1997).
33. Bishop JW. Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology. Preliminary data on 2,032 cases from a clinical trial site. Acta Cytol. 41, 15-23 (1997).
34. Howell LP, Davis RL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The AutoCyte preparation for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol. 42, 171-177 (1998).
35. Kunz J, Rondez R, Yoshizaki C, Fivian M, Held G, Lind B. Comparison of conventional Pap smears with thin-layer specimen (liquid-based Pap test) and correlation with cytopathological findings with HPV status using the hybrid capture system. Schweiz Rundsch Med. Prax. 87(43), 1434-1440 (1998).
36. Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology. Comparison based on 2,156 cases. J. Reprod. Med. 45(3), 179-184 (2000).
37. Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A et al. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol. 45(4), 519-524 (2001).
38. Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer B, Callicott J Jr, Husain M, Taylor D. Effectiveness of thin-layer preparations in a blinded, split-sample study. Extended cytologic evalution. J. Reprod. Med. 46(10), 880-886 (2001).
39. Robyr R, Nazeer S, Vassilakos P et al. Feasibility of cytology-based cervical cancer screening in rural Cameroon. Acta Cytol. 46, 1110-1116 (2002).
40. Vassilakos P, Griffin S, Megevand E, Campana A. CytoRich liquid-based cervical cytologic test: screening results in a routine cytopathology service. Acta Cytol. 42, 198-202 (1998). Direct-to-vial SurePath study.
41. Vassilakos P, Saurel J, Rondez R. Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte PREP liquid-based preparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol. 43, 65-68 (1999).
42. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J. Reprod. Med. 45(11), 912-916 (2000).
43. Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J. Reprod. Med. 46(4), 353-358 (2001).
44. Vassilakos P, Schwartz D, de Marval F et al. Biopsy-based comparison of liquid-based, thin-layer preparations to conventional Pap smears. J. Reprod. Med. 45(1), 11-16 (2000).
45. Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte PREP endocervical adequacy. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 118, 41-46 (2002).
46. Colgan TJ, McLachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seldenfeld AM, Mai VM. Results of implementation of liquid-based cytology - SurePath in the Ontario Screening Program. Cancer Cytopathol. 102, 362-367 (2004).
47. Sass MA. Use of liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital. Impact on cytology performance and productivity. Acta Cytol. 48, 17-22 (2004).
48. Davis-Devine S, Day SJ, Freund GG. Test performance comparison of INFORM and Hybrid Capture 2 high-risk HPV DNA tests using the SurePath Liquid-Based Pap Test as the collection method. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 124, 24-30 (2005).
49. Bigras G, de Marval F. The probability for a Pap test to be abnormal is directly proportional to HPV viral load: results from a Swiss study comparing HPV testing and liquid-based cytology to detect cervical cancer precursors in 13,842 women. Br. J. Cancer 93, 575-581 (2005). Patients with negative SurePath slides have colopobiopsy.
50. Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson E. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 287, 2120-2129 (2002).
51. Qureshi MN, Bolide D, Ringer PJ, Spangler FE, Zimmerman G. HPV testing in liquid cytology specimens: comparison of analytic sensitivity and specificity for in situ hybridization and chemiluminescent nucleic acid testing. Acta Cytol. 49, 120-126 (2005).
52. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ. The AutoPap System for primary screening in cervical cytology: Comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol. 42, 214-220(1998). Results of a clinical trial for the FocalPoint primary screening system and SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou test.
53. Lee J, Bannister W, Allison DG, Patten FW. Evaluation of the NeoPath AutoPap QC System on AutoCyte PREP slides. Acta Cytol. 42, 1253 (1998).
54. Huang TW, Lin TS, Lee JS. Sensitivity studies of the AutoPap System Location Guided Screening of cervical-vaginal cytologic smears. Acta Cytol. 43, 363-368, (1999).
55. Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 118(3), 399-407 (2002).
56. Malinowski DP. Molecular diagnostic assays for cervical neoplasia: emerging markers for the detection of high-grade cervical disease. Bio Techniques 38(4), S17-S23 (2005). New biomarkers for cervical cancer, including aberrant S-phase induction.