Cytologic Detection of Cervical Abnormalities Using Liquid-based Compared with Conventional Cytology: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: To compare test positivity rates of liquid-based and conventional cytology.
Methods: This study was a cluster randomized controlled trial with family practice as the unit of randomization, performed within the Dutch national cervical screening program. Women aged 30-60 years (n=89,784) recruited from 246 family practices were included. One-hundred twenty-two practices (49,222 individuals) were randomly assigned to the experimental arm, and 124 practices (40,562 participants), to the conventional arm. Inclusion was performed during a 3-year period between April 2003 and July 2006. Cytologic test positivity rates of liquid-based compared with conventional cytology was compared in terms of crude and adjusted odds ratios, applying a per-protocol analysis.
Results: Crude ratios of the odds of test positivity rates of liquid-based compared with conventional cytology for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or more severe, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or more severe were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.10), 1.00 (95% CI 0.83-1.20), and 0.97 (95% CI 0.77-1.22), respectively. Liquid-based cytology resulted in fewer unsatisfactory tests (odds ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.38). The results did not change when the odds ratios were adjusted for age, study site, study period, and urbanization level. Of 128 women screened with liquid-based cytology, one unsatisfactory preparation is avoided.
Conclusion: This study found no statistically significant difference in cytologic test positivity rates between liquid-based and conventional cytology. However, liquid-based cytology resulted in significantly fewer unsatisfactory tests.
Clinical Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register, www.trialregister.nl, NTR1032
Level Of Evidence: I.
Goetgebuer R, Kreijne J, Aitken C, Dijkstra G, Hoentjen F, de Boer N J Crohns Colitis. 2021; 15(9):1464-1473.
PMID: 33609353 PMC: 8653760. DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab036.
Matsuo Y, Yamashita K, Yoshida T, Satoh Y Virchows Arch. 2020; 478(3):507-516.
PMID: 32869115 DOI: 10.1007/s00428-020-02919-0.
Can LBC Completely Replace Conventional Pap Smear in Developing Countries.
Kamineni V, Nair P, Deshpande A J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019; 69(1):69-76.
PMID: 30814813 PMC: 6361172. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-018-1123-7.
Rozemeijer K, Naber S, Penning C, Overbeek L, Looman C, de Kok I BMJ. 2017; 356:j504.
PMID: 28196844 PMC: 5421440. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j504.
Haghighi F, Ghanbarzadeh N, Ataee M, Sharifzadeh G, Shahbazi Mojarrad J, Najafi-Semnani F Adv Biomed Res. 2016; 5:162.
PMID: 27995101 PMC: 5137229. DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.192735.