Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Colposcopy of Female Genital Tract pp 43–60Cite as

Cytology as a Screening Tool

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 961 Accesses

Abstract

Cytology has been the mainstay of screening programs for cervical cancer all over the world.The Bethesda system for reporting of cervical cytology has helped in uniform grouping of the patients and evolution of standard treatment protocols.Low garde lesions under this nomenclature are the ones which are transient and carry little risk for oncogenesis whereas high grade lesions are associated with viral persistence and have the potential for progression to cervical cancer.In this chapter, conventional cytology, liquid based cytology, Thin prep, Surepath and automated cytology screening methods have been dicussed in detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anniversaries: George Papanicolaou – Weill Medical College. Available at http://weill.cornell.edu/archives/blog/2012/03/anniversaries-george-papanicolaou.html. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.

  2. Georgios Papanikolaou – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgios_Papanikolaou. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.

  3. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer Latest world cancer statistics: global cancer burden rises to 14.1 million new cases in 2012: marked increase in breast cancers must be addressed. From: www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2013/pdfs/pr223_E.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2014.

  4. Pinto AP, Crum CP. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: defining progression and its consequence. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43(2):352–62. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jastreboff AM, Cymet T. Role of the human papilloma virus in the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and malignancy. Postgrad Med J. 2002;78(918):225–8. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kitchener HC, Castle PE, Cox JT. Chapter 7: achievements and limitations of cervical cytology screening. Vaccine. 2006;24 Suppl 3:S3/63–70. Review.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Arends MJ, Buckley CH, Wells M. Aetiology, pathogenesis, and pathology of cervical neoplasia. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(2):96–103. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Cox JT. Epidemiology of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;9(1):1–37. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Comparison of four cytologic classifications for squamous cells. Available at http://jncimono.oxfordjournals.org/content/2003/31/72/F2.expansion.html. Accessed 6 Sept 2014.

  10. Cibas ES. Cervical and vaginal cytology. In: Cibas ES, Ducatman BS, editors. Cytology diagnostic and clinical correlates. 3rd ed. Atlanta: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2009. p. 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright Jr T, Young N, Forum Group Members, Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114–9. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Solomon D, Nayar R, editors. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R, for the ALTS Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:293–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cervical Cytology Practice Guidelines TOC. Available at http://www.cytopathology.org/cervical-cytology-practice-guidelines-toc/. Accessed 10 Sept 2014.

  15. McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I, et al. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy: IAC Task Force Summary. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:25–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vooijs GP, Elias A, Van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1986;35:251–7.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thompson D. Adequate “pap” smears: a guide for sampling techniques in screening for abnormalities of the uterine cervix. Toronto: Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program of Canada; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rubio CA. The false negative smear. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;49:576–80.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Boon ME, Guilloud JC, Rietverd WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:843–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saitas VL, Hawthorne C, Cater J, Bibbo M. Single slide versus double slide: a comparative study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;12:317–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Quakenbush SR. Single slide Pap smear: an acceptable alternative to the double-slide Pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20:317–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas Cox J. Primary and secondary prevention: HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening. In: Mayeaux EJ, Thomas Cox J, editors. Modern colposcopy textbook and atlas. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2012. p. 539–69.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Collaço LM, Zardo L. Cytologic screening programs. In: Bibbo M, Wilbur D, editors. Comprehensive cytopathology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008. p. 47–57.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(7609):28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(1):167–77. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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(16):1757–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1327–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(4):353–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(2):278–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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(5):709–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bai H, Sung CJ, Steinhoff MM. ThinPrep Pap Test promotes detection of glandular lesions of the endocervix. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;23(1):19–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hecht JL, Sheets EE, Lee KR. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in conventional cervical/vaginal smears and thin-layer preparations. Cancer. 2002;96(1):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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(6):331–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Longatto Filho A, Pereira SM, Di Loreto C, et al. DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy based confirmation. Gynecol Oncol. 2005;97(2):497–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dahl MB, Ejersbo D, Holund B. Cause and follow-up of inadequate cervical smears in the county of Funen. Ugeskr Laeger. 2002;164(37):4280–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sherman ME. Chapter 11: future directions in cervical pathology. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;31:72–9. Review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin number 131: screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1222–38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Wentzensen N, Lawson HW, 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):829–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:680–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mitchell MF, Schottenfeld D, Tortolera-Luna G, Cantor SB, Richards-Kortum R. Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:626–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 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 cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. University of Zimbabwe/JHPIEGO Cervical Cancer Project. Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening: test qualities in a primary-care setting. Lancet. 1999;353:869–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wainwright H, Wright T. Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening in resource poor settings. Cancer. 2000;89:826–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wright Jr TC, Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Lorinez A. HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA. 2000;283:81–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wright Jr TC. Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: an analysis of factors influencing test performance. Cancer. 2002;94:1699–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cronjé HS, Parham GP, Cooreman BF, de Beer A, Divall P, Bam RH. A comparison of four screening methods for cervical neoplasia in a developing country. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sankaranarayanan R, Thara S, Anjali S, Roy C, Shastri SS, Mahe C, et al. Accuracy of conventional cytology: results from a multicentre screening study in India. J Med Screen. 2004;11:77–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sankaranarayanan R, Gaffikin L, Jacob M, Sellors J, Robles S. A critical assessment of screening methods for cervical neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89 Suppl 2:S4–12. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(10):954–62.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Shastri SS, Dinshaw K, Amin G, Goswami S, Patil S, Chinoy R, Kane S, Kelkar R, Muwonge R, Mahé C, Ajit D, Sankaranarayanan R. Concurrent evaluation of visual, cytological and HPV testing as screening methods for the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Mumbai, India. Bull World Health Organ. 2005;83(3):186–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Wright TC, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Cox JT, Garcia F, Goldie S, et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:304–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jayant K, et al. Improved stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer with increased cancer awareness in a rural Indian population. Int J Cancer. 1995;63:161–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Jayant K, et al. Survival from cancer in Barshi registry, rural India. In: Sankaranarayanan R, Black RJ, Parkin DM, editors. Cancer survival in developing countries, IARC scientific publications no. 145. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1988. p. 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Guidelines for cervical cancer screening programme. Available at http://screening.iarc.fr/doc/WHO_India_CCSP_guidelines_2005.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dysplasia Clinic, 119, Ravindra Nagar, Indore, India

    Vani Bharani MD & Bharti Bharani MS

Authors
  1. Vani Bharani MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bharti Bharani MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Vani Bharani MD or Bharti Bharani MS .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Dept of Obstetrics & Gynecology Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Sumita Mehta

  2. Maulana Azad Med. College&Lok Nayak Hos., Dept. of Obstetrics & Gynecology Maulana Azad Med. College&Lok Nayak Hos., New Delhi, India

    Poonam Sachdeva

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bharani, V., Bharani, B. (2017). Cytology as a Screening Tool. In: Mehta, S., Sachdeva, P. (eds) Colposcopy of Female Genital Tract. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1705-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1705-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-1704-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-1705-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation