Advertisement

Can LBC Completely Replace Conventional Pap Smear in Developing Countries

  • Vasundhara Kamineni
  • Priti NairEmail author
  • Ashok Deshpande
Original Article
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Background

A number of screening techniques have been developed to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, most common of which is conventional Pap smear (CPS) being overtaken by liquid-based cytology (LBC) in most of the developed countries. There are a number of studies with conflicting results, and no method has been shown superior in terms of all parameters. LBC was introduced in our hospital in 2014, and we planned to do a study and compare results of the two techniques. This study aims to compare the two methods in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, turnover time, cost-effectiveness, sample adequacy. This study has been done in 100 women with unhealthy cervix to increase the output.

Method

This was a prospective observational study. A total of 100 women fulfilling the inclusion criteria were subjected to screening test. In first 50 cases, first conventional Pap smear was taken and then LBC, and in remaining 50 cases, first LBC and then conventional Pap smear were taken; this was done to remove bias.

Results

The number of unsatisfactory slides was reduced with LBC, and turnover time was less for LBC. The detection of ASCUS was increased with LBC, but the detection of higher-grade lesions (HSIL and SCC) was equal with both tests.

Conclusion

The superiority of LBC with respect to reduction in the number of unsatisfactory slides and less turnover time is being offset with increased detection of low-grade lesions subjecting women to further testing increasing the cost of programme and anxiety among women. It is difficult to say that it can completely replace conventional Pap smear in low-resource settings.

Keywords

Liquid-based cytology ASCUS HSIL LSIL SCC AGUS 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the individual patients involved in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Oaknin A, Díaz de Corcuera I, Rodríguez-Freixinós V, et al. SEOM guidelines for cervical cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2012;14:516–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denny L. Cervical cancer: prevention and treatment. Discov Med. 2012;14:125–31.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh E, Seth S, Rani V, et al. Awareness of cervical cancer screening among nursing staff in a tertiary institution of rural India. J Gynecol Oncol. 2012;23:141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, et al. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maccallini V, Angloni C, Caraceni D, et al. Comparison of the conventional cervical smear and liquid-based cytology: Results of a controlled, prospective study in the Abruzzo region of Italy. Acta Cytol. 2008;52:568–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sykes PH, Harker DY, Miller A, et al. A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting. BJOG. 2008;115:1375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Treacy A, Reynolds J, Kay EW, et al. Has the ThinPrep method of cervical screening maintained its improvement over conventional smears in terms of specimen adequacy? Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37:239–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patel C, Ullal A, Roberts M, et al. Endometrial carcinoma detected with SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology: comparison with conventional cytology. Cytopathology. 2009;20:380–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh VB, Gupta N, Nijhawan R, et al. Liquid based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical pap smears: experience from the first 1000 split samples. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2015;58(1):17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Akamatsua S, Kodamac S, Himejia Y, et al. Comparison of liquid based cytology with conventional cytology in cervical cancer screening. Acta Cytol. 2012;56:370–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma J, Toi PC, Siddaraju N, et al. A comparative analysis of conventional and SurePath liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: a study of 140 cases. J Cytol. 2016;33:80–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sykes PH, Harker DY, Miller A, et al. A randomized comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting. BJOG. 2008;115:1375–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strander B, Andersson-Ellström A, Milsom I, et al. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 2007;111:285–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Celik C, Gezinc K, Toy H, et al. A comparison of liquid-base cytology with conventional cytology. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;100:163–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, et al. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2007;111:285–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasundhara Kamineni
    • 1
  • Priti Nair
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ashok Deshpande
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyKAMSRCHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of PathologyKAMSRClHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations