» Articles » PMID: 8960019

Conventional Cervical Cytologic Smears Vs. ThinPrep Smears. A Paired Comparison Study on Cervical Cytology

Overview
Journal Acta Cytol
Publisher Karger
Specialty Cell Biology
Date 1996 Nov 1
PMID 8960019
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the time required for evaluation, the diagnostic accuracy and quality of conventional glass slide smears vs. ThinPrep smears in 365 women.

Study Design: Both smears were obtained at the same time using the Accellon Combi cervical biosampler. Histology served as the diagnostic "gold standard."

Results: The average screening time was 1 minute, 23 seconds, shorter per smear with the ThinPrep method as compared to the conventional glass slide (P < .001). Direct diagnostic agreement between the two smear methods was obtained in 311 of 364 evaluable smears (85.4%, kappa = .63). Despite the relatively high rate of "adequate but limited by absence of transformation zone components" observed with the ThinPrep method, the sensitivity and specificity of the ThinPrep method was slightly greater but not statistically significantly different than the conventional technique, irrespective of the disease categories (low and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and invasive cancer).

Conclusion: The shorter time required to screen ThinPrep smears compared to conventional smears in this study was not sufficiently important to offset the current unit price for preparing ThinPrep smears.

Citing Articles

MicroRNA-Based Liquid Biopsy for Cervical Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment Monitoring.

Kepsha M, Timofeeva A, Chernyshev V, Silachev D, Mezhevitinova E, Sukhikh G Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 25(24.

PMID: 39769036 PMC: 11678179. DOI: 10.3390/ijms252413271.


Evaluation of a Novel Fixative Solution for Liquid-Based Cytology in Diagnostic Cytopathology.

Casatta N, Poli A, Bassani S, Veronesi G, Rossi G, Ferrari C Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(24).

PMID: 38132185 PMC: 10742394. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13243601.


False Negative Results in Cervical Cancer Screening-Risks, Reasons and Implications for Clinical Practice and Public Health.

Macios A, Nowakowski A Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(6).

PMID: 35741319 PMC: 9222017. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061508.


Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study.

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.


The advantages of incorporating liquid-based cytology (TACAS™) in mass screening for cervical cancer.

Yokoyama Y, Futagami M, Watanabe J, Sakuraba A, Nagasawa K, Maruyama H Hum Cell. 2016; 29(2):83-90.

PMID: 26739336 DOI: 10.1007/s13577-015-0130-6.