Clinical utility of Liqui-PREP[TM] cytology system for primary cervical cancer screening in a large urban hospital setting in China

Journal of Cytology

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 20-25

  Deshou, Hao ^a,b   Changhua, Wang ^a   Qinyan, Li ^a   Wei, Liu ^a   Wen, Fu ^a  

^a Department of CytoPathology   (China)

^b NONE   (China)

Author keywords

Cervical carcinoma; Cytology screening; Liqui PREP cytology system; Liquid based cytology

Indexed keywords

EID: 68949220113     PISSN: 09709371     EISSN: 09745165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9371.54863     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Walter SD, Irwig L, Glasziou PP. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:943-51.
2. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680-9.
3. Franco EL, Duarte-Franco E, Ferenczy A. Cervical cancer: Epidemiology, prevention and the role of human papillomavirus infection. CMJ 2001;164:1017-25.
4. Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC. Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs ThinPrep smears: A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1136-42.
5. Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe JK, Grieves A, Bowditch R. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1997;19:239-45.
6. Sherman ME, Shiffman MH, Lorenz AT, Manos M, Scott DR, Kurman R, et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology: Correlation of cytopathology diagnosis with detection of high risk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;102:182-7.
7. Sherman ME, Mendoza M, Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, et al. Performance of liquid-based thin layer cervical cytology: Correlation with reference diagnose and human papillomavirus testing. Mod Pathol 1998;1:837-43.
8. Darwin LH, Cullen AP, Arthur PM, Long CD, Smith KR, Girdner JL, et al. Comparison of Digene Hybrid Capture 2® and conventional culture for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in cervical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:641-4.
9. 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 2001;185:308-17.
10. 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.
11. Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap Test: Performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer 1999;87:105-12.
12. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytology abnormalities: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-9.
13. 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.
14. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquidbased cytology for cervical screening. Technology Appraisal Number 69. Availabe from: http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/TA69-LBC-review-FullGuidance.pdf (last accessed on 2004 Sept 10).
15. Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, Brown JL, Becker LA, Grant WD. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou Deshou, et al.: Conventional cervical cytology vs Liquid based cytology test? A systematic review. J Fam Pract 2001;50:1040-6.
16. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: A systematic review. Lancet 2006;367:122-32.
17. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:189-202.
18. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, Bonsel GJ, Prins MH, van der Meulen JH, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 1999;282:1061-6.
19. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41-4.
20. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
21. Park J, Jung EH, Kim C, Choi YH. Direct-to-vial comparison of a new liquid-based cytology system, liqui-PREP versus the conventional pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:488-92.
22. Melsheimer P, Kaul S, Dobeck S, Bastert G. Immunocytochemical detection of HPV high-risk type L1 capsid proteins in LSIL and HSIL as compared with detection of HPV L1 DNA. Acta Cytol 2003;47:124-8.
23. Yoshida T, Sano T, Kanuma T, Owada N, Sakurai S, Fukuda T, et al. Immunochemical analysis of HPV L1 capsid protein and p16 protein in liquid-based cytology samples from uterine cervical lesions. Cancer 2008;114:83-8.
24. Behtash N. Liqui-PREP™, a new liquid based cervical cytology in comparison with conventional pap smear. Res J Biol Sci 2008;3:627-30