» Articles » PMID: 26458884

Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and Conventional Cytology As Primary Test Method: SurePath is Associated with Increased CIN II+ Detection Rates

Overview
Specialties Oncology
Public Health
Date 2015 Oct 14
PMID 26458884
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Within the last decade, SurePath and ThinPrep [both liquid-based cytology (LBC) tests] have replaced conventional cytology (CC) as primary test method in cervical cancer screening programs of multiple countries. The aim of our study was to examine the effect in the Dutch screening program.

Methods: All primary smears taken within this program from 2000 to 2011 were analyzed using the nationwide registry of histo- and cytopathology (PALGA) with a follow-up until March 2013. The percentage of smears classified as borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) and >BMD as well as CIN and cervical cancer detection rates were compared between SurePath and ThinPrep versus CC by logistic regression analyses (adjusted for age, screen region, socioeconomic status, and calendar time).

Results: We included 3,118,685 CC, 1,313,731 SurePath, and 1,584,587 ThinPrep smears. Using SurePath resulted in an increased rate of primary smears classified as >BMD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.16)]. CIN I and II(+) detection rates increased by 14 % [OR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.08-1.20)] and 8 % [OR = 1.08 (95% CI 1.05-1.12)]. Cervical cancer detection rates were unaffected. Implementing ThinPrep did not result in major alterations of the cytological classification of smears, and it did not affect CIN detection rates. While not significant, cervical cancer detection rates were lower [OR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-1.01)].

Conclusions: The impact of replacing CC by LBC as primary test method depends on the type of LBC test used. Only the use of SurePath was associated with increased CIN II(+) detection, although it simultaneously increased the detection of CIN I.

Citing Articles

Optimal Screening and Detection Strategies for Cervical Lesions: A Retrospective Study.

Yang Y, Xu L, Yuan S, Lv J, Chen P, Wang W J Cancer. 2024; 15(11):3612-3624.

PMID: 38817879 PMC: 11134435. DOI: 10.7150/jca.96128.


Advancements in the Management of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: A Comprehensive Review.

Waghe T, Acharya N Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e58645.

PMID: 38770508 PMC: 11104479. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58645.


The Efficiency of Cervical Pap and Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology: A Review.

Dasgupta S Cureus. 2023; 15(11):e48343.

PMID: 38060751 PMC: 10698710. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48343.


Comparative Analysis of Conventional Cytology and Liquid-Based Cytology in the Detection of Carcinoma Cervix and its Precursor Lesions.

Maheshwari Y, Handa U, Aggarwal P, Goel B J Cytol. 2023; 40(3):114-118.

PMID: 37745808 PMC: 10516152. DOI: 10.4103/joc.joc_29_23.


Minimally Invasive Cytopathology and Accurate Diagnosis: Technical Procedures and Ancillary Techniques.

Huang C, Luo X, Wang S, Wan Y, Wang J, Tang X In Vivo. 2023; 37(1):11-21.

PMID: 36593030 PMC: 9843757. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13050.


References
1.
Bigras G, Rieder M, Lambercy J, Kunz B, Chatelain J, Reymond O . Keeping collecting device in liquid medium is mandatory to ensure optimized liquid-based cervical cytologic sampling. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2006; 7(3):168-74. DOI: 10.1097/00128360-200307000-00003. View

2.
Whitlock E, Vesco K, Eder M, Lin J, Senger C, Burda B . Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155(10):687-97, W214-5. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-10-201111150-00376. View

3.
Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart R, Wright T . Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears. A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 1996; 40(6):1136-42. DOI: 10.1159/000333971. View

4.
Cox J . History of the use of HPV testing in cervical screening and in the management of abnormal cervical screening results. J Clin Virol. 2009; 45 Suppl 1:S3-S12. DOI: 10.1016/S1386-6532(09)70002-2. View

5.
Zhang J, Yu K . What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998; 280(19):1690-1. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690. View