Comparison of ThinPrep and SurePath liquid-based cytology and subsequent human papillomavirus DNA testing in China

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 119, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 387-394

  Zhao, Fang Hui ^a   Hu, Shang Ying ^a   Bian, Jessica J ^b   Liu, Bin ^a   Peck, Roger B ^c   Bao, Yan Ping ^d   Pan, Qin Jing ^a   Frappart, Lucien ^e   Sellors, John ^c,f   Qiao, You Lin ^a  

^a PEKING UNION MEDICAL COLLEGE   (China)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c PATH   (United States)

^d PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e EDOUARD HERRIOT HOSPITAL   (France)

^f MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Cytology; DNA testing; Human papillomavirus (HPV); Screening

Indexed keywords

PRESERVATIVE; VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER SCREENING; CHINA; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HIGH GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; LOW GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRECANCER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VISUAL INSPECTION WITH ACETIC ACID; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CYTODIAGNOSIS; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY;

ADULT; CHINA; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DNA, VIRAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84862833138     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20177     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Clarke EA, Anderson TW. Does screening by "Pap" smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case-control study. Lancet. 1979;2:1-4.
2. Mobius G. Cytological early detection of cervical carcinoma: possibilities and limitations. Analysis of failures. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1993;119:513-521.
3. Dighe S, Ajit D. Collection devices for cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison. Acta Cytol. 2005;49:416-420.
4. Alves VA, Bibbo M, Schmitt FC, Milanezi F, Longatto Filho A. Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid-based cytology. A morphologic study. Acta Cytol. 2004;48:187-193.
5. Arbyn M, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch P, Prendiville W, Dillner J. Clinical utility of HPV-DNA detection: triage of minor cervical lesions, follow-up of women treated for high-grade CIN: an update of pooled evidence. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;99(3 suppl 1):S7-S11.
6. Qiao YL, Sellors JW, Eder PS, et al. A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:929-936.
7. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT, et al. Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytological screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer. 1997;81:89-97.
8. Strander B, Andersson-Ellström A, Milsom I, Rådberg T, Ryd W. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 2007;111:285-291.
9. Lerma E, Quintana MJ, Quilez M, et al. Effectiveness of liquid-based cytology and papanicolaou tests in a low risk population. Acta Cytol. 2007;51:399-406.
10. Beerman H, Van Dorst EBL, Kuenen-Boumeester V, Hogendoorn PC. Superior performance of liquid-based versus conventional cytology in a population-based cervical cancer screening program. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112:572-576.
11. Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ. 2007;35:31.
12. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:167-177.
13. Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the college of american pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133:1912-1916.
14. Kim HS, Park JS, Park JY, et al. Comparison of two preparation methods for endocervical evaluation. Acta Cytol. 2007;51:742-748.
15. Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer. 2003;99:331-335.
16. Moy LM, Zhao FH, Long-Yu L, et al. Human papillomavirus testing and cervical cytology in primary screening for cervical cancer among women in rural China: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:646-656.
17. Cagle AJ, Hu SY, Sellors JW, et al. Use of an expanded gold standard to estimate the accuracy of colposcopy and visual inspection with acetic acid. Int J Cancer. 2010;126:156-161.
18. Clavel C, Masure M, Putaud I, et al. Hybrid capture II, a new sensitive test for human papillomavirus detection. Comparison with hybrid capture I and PCR results in cervical lesions. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:737-740.
19. Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R, et al. Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;83:439-444.
20. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, eds. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2003.
21. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
22. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983;148:839-843.
23. Yan H. Medical Statistics. 1st ed. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House; 2005.
24. Sweeney BJ, Haq Z, Happel JF, Weinstein B, Schneider D. Comparison of the effectiveness of two liquid-based Papanicolaou systems in the handling of adverse limiting factors, such as excessive blood. Cancer. 2006;25:108:27-31.
25. Kenyon S, Sweeney BJ, Happel J, Marchilli GE, Weinstein B, Schneider D. Comparison of BD Surepath and ThinPrep Pap systems in the processing of mucus-rich specimens. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2010;25;118:244-249.
26. Belinson JL, Pan QJ, Biscotti C, et al. Primary screening with liquid-based cytology in an unscreened population in rural China, with an emphasis on reprocessing unsatisfactory samples. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:470-474.
27. Marchand L, Mundt M, Klein G, Agarwal SC. Optimal collection technique and devices for a quality pap smear. WMJ. 2005;104:51-55.
28. Wright PK, Marshall J, Desai M. Comparison of SurePath and ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators. Cytopathology. 2010;21:374-378.
29. Siddiqi A, Spataro M, McIntire H, et al. Hybrid capture 2 human papillomavirus DNA testing for women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance Papanicolaou results in SurePath and ThinPrep specimens. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2009;117:318-325.