Performance of the cellsolutions glucyte liquid-based cytology in comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath methods

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 189-197

  Alaghehbandan, Reza ^a  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

CellSolutions; Glucyte; Liquid based cytology; SurePath; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CERVICAL HIGH GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; CERVICAL LOW GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ENDOMETRIAL BRUSH; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; GYNECOLOGICAL AND OBSTETRIC DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PAPANICOLAOU TEST KIT; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; VAGINA SMEAR KIT; WART VIRUS; CANADA; CANCER GRADING; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COLPOSCOPY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC KIT; EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STAINING; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; CANADA; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COLPOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REAGENT KITS, DIAGNOSTIC; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STAINING AND LABELING; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84873594772     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000345878     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Clarke EA, Anderson TW. Does screening byPap 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. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. Davey E, dAssuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, Farnsworth A. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ. 2007; 335: 31
10. 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
11. 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
12. Kim HS, Park JS, Park JY, et al. Comparison of two preparation methods for endocervical evaluation. Acta Cytol. 2007; 51: 742-748
13. Zhao FH, Hu SY, Bian JJ, Liu B, Peck RB, Bao YP, Pan QJ, Frappart L, Sellors J, Qiao YL. Comparison of ThinPrep and SurePath liquid-based cytology and subsequent human papillomavirus DNA testing in China. Cancer Cytopathol. 2011; 119: 387-394
14. Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Fontaine D, Bentley J, Escott N, Ghatage P, Gadag V, Holloway G, Bartellas E, Kum N, Giede C, Lear A. Clinical performance of the PreTect HPV-Proofer E6/E7 mRNA assay in comparison with that of the Hybrid Capture 2 test for identification of women at risk of cervical cancer. J Clin Microbiol. 2010; 48: 2779-2785
15. Ratnam S, Coutlee F, Fontaine D, Bentley J, Escott N, Ghatage P, Gadag V, Holloway G, Bartellas E, Kum N, Giede C, Lear A. Aptima HPV E6/E7 mRNA test is as sensitive as Hybrid Capture 2 assay but more specific at detecting cervical precancer and cancer. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 49: 557-564
16. Coutlée F, Ratnam S, Ramanakumar AV, Insinga RR, Bentley J, Escott N, Ghatage P, Koushik A, Ferenczy A, Franco EL. Distribution of human papillomavirus genotypes in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer in Canada. J Med Virol. 2011; 83: 1034-1041
17. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C, Ghiringhello B, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, Parisio F, Pojer A, Schiboni ML, Sintoni C, Zorzi M, Segnan N, Confortini M. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening - randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007; 335: 28
18. Davey DD, Greenspan DL, Kurtycz DF, Husain M, Austin RM. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: review of ancillary testing modalities and implications for follow-up. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010; 14: 206-214
19. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Vedder JE, Arbyn M, Bulten J. Causes and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136: 76-83
20. Harrison WN, Teale AM, Jones SP, Mohammed MA. The impact of the introduction of liquid based cytology on the variation in the proportion of inadequate samples between GP practices. BMC Public Health. 2007; 7: 191-195
21. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquidbased compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112: 1327-1334
22. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, Bulten J, Arbyn M. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009; 302: 1757-1764
23. Belsley NA, Tambouret RH, Misdraji J, Muzikansky A, Russell DK, Wilbur DC. Cytologic features of endocervical glandular lesions: comparison of SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional smear specimen preparations. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008; 36: 232-237
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; 108: 27-31
25. Haack LA, OBrien D, Selvaggi SM. Protocol for the processing of bloody cervical specimens: glacial acetic acid and the ThinPrep Pap Test. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006; 34: 210-213
26. Bigras G, Rieder MA, Lambercy JM, Kunz B, Chatelain JP, Reymond O, Cornaz D. Keeping collecting device in liquid medium is mandatory to ensure optimized liquid-based cervical cytologic sampling. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2003; 7: 168-174
27. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Humcevic J, Laverty CR. Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap smear in relation to prediction of adenocarcinoma in situ. Acta Cytol. 1999; 43: 74-80
28. McGrath CM. ASCUS in Papanicolaou smears: problems, controversies, and potential future directions. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002; 117(suppl): S62-S75
29. Grenko RT, Abendroth CS, Frauenhoffer EE, Ruggiero FM, Zaino RJ. Variance in the interpretation of cervical biopsy specimens obtained for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Clin Pathol. 2000; 114: 735-740