Cervical cancer screening by conventional Pap smear versus liquid based cytology

Nepal Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-12-31 DOI:10.3126/njog.v14i2.28435

Subi Basnyat, G. Baral, K. Malla

{"title":"Cervical cancer screening by conventional Pap smear versus liquid based cytology","authors":"Subi Basnyat, G. Baral, K. Malla","doi":"10.3126/njog.v14i2.28435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: To evaluate Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) diagnostic performance compared with Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) for cervical cancer screening and to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the two cytology methods with gold standard cervical biopsy. \n Methods: This is a hospital based cross-sectional study conducted from April 2017 to April 2018 in 110 sample randomly selected at gynecology OPD in Paropakar Maternity and Women’s Hospital. Paired samples (CPS and LBC) were taken from the same patient. Abnormal epithelial lesion detected in LBC and CPS was sent for biopsy. Bethedsa reporting system was followed and data analyzed in terms of diagnostic accuracy. \n Results: LBC vs CPS for satisfactory report was 96.4% vs 91.8% while unsatisfactory was 3.6% vs 1.8% (p=0.02). The detection of premalignant lesions was ASCUS 2.7%, HSIL 4.5%, ASCUS-H 1.8% and LSIL 0.9% by LBC while by CPS- ASC-US 0.9%, HSIL 3.6%, LSIL 1.8% and ASC-H 0.9% were detected. The sensitivity and specificity of LBC vs CPS was 100% vs 88% and 81.8% vs 99% respectively. The positive predictive and negative predictive value of LBC vs CPS was 81.8% vs 88% and 100% vs 99% respectively. \n Conclusions: Cell pick-up was satisfactory in both LBC and CPS. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of CPS is similar whereas the positive predictive value of LBC is less than its sensitivity. Cervical cancer screening with CPS is effective alternative over LBC by its cost and level of accuracy.","PeriodicalId":30234,"journal":{"name":"Nepal Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"1 1","pages":"22-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nepal Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/njog.v14i2.28435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) diagnostic performance compared with Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) for cervical cancer screening and to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the two cytology methods with gold standard cervical biopsy. Methods: This is a hospital based cross-sectional study conducted from April 2017 to April 2018 in 110 sample randomly selected at gynecology OPD in Paropakar Maternity and Women’s Hospital. Paired samples (CPS and LBC) were taken from the same patient. Abnormal epithelial lesion detected in LBC and CPS was sent for biopsy. Bethedsa reporting system was followed and data analyzed in terms of diagnostic accuracy. Results: LBC vs CPS for satisfactory report was 96.4% vs 91.8% while unsatisfactory was 3.6% vs 1.8% (p=0.02). The detection of premalignant lesions was ASCUS 2.7%, HSIL 4.5%, ASCUS-H 1.8% and LSIL 0.9% by LBC while by CPS- ASC-US 0.9%, HSIL 3.6%, LSIL 1.8% and ASC-H 0.9% were detected. The sensitivity and specificity of LBC vs CPS was 100% vs 88% and 81.8% vs 99% respectively. The positive predictive and negative predictive value of LBC vs CPS was 81.8% vs 88% and 100% vs 99% respectively. Conclusions: Cell pick-up was satisfactory in both LBC and CPS. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of CPS is similar whereas the positive predictive value of LBC is less than its sensitivity. Cervical cancer screening with CPS is effective alternative over LBC by its cost and level of accuracy.

查看原文本刊更多论文

传统子宫颈抹片检查与液体细胞学检查的比较

目的:评价液体细胞学(LBC)与常规巴氏涂片(CPS)在宫颈癌筛查中的诊断效果，并比较两种细胞学方法与金标准宫颈活检的敏感性和特异性。方法:选取2017年4月至2018年4月在Paropakar妇产医院妇科门诊随机抽取的110例样本，以医院为基础进行横断面研究。配对样本(CPS和LBC)取自同一患者。在LBC和CPS中发现异常上皮病变送活检。采用Bethedsa报告系统，对数据进行诊断准确性分析。结果:LBC与CPS满意度分别为96.4%和91.8%，不满意度分别为3.6%和1.8% (p=0.02)。LBC对癌前病变的检出率为ASCUS 2.7%、HSIL 4.5%、ASCUS- h 1.8%、LSIL 0.9%，而CPS- ASC-US检出率为0.9%、HSIL 3.6%、LSIL 1.8%、ASC-H 0.9%。LBC和CPS的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和88%和81.8%和99%。LBC对CPS的阳性预测值为81.8%对88%，阴性预测值为100%对99%。结论:LBC和CPS的细胞提取均令人满意。CPS的敏感性和阳性预测值相近，而LBC的阳性预测值小于其敏感性。从成本和准确性来看，采用CPS进行宫颈癌筛查比LBC更有效。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Nepal Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks