Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology
Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial
International Journal of Cancer, Volume 118, No. 4, Year 2006
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Our study directly compares the performance of liquid-based (LBC) and conventional cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer (CIN 2+) in high-risk, previously unscreened women. As part of a larger randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of a "screen and treat" program for cervical cancer prevention, 5,652 South African women, aged 35 to 65 years, were screened using either ThinPrep or conventional Papanicolaou cytology. The cytology method used (i.e., ThinPrep or conventional) was rotated on a 6-month basis for the duration of the study. Directly following collection of the cytology specimen, all women underwent colposcopy with endocervical curettage and biopsy of all colposcopic abnormalities. Assessment of cytology and histology results was blinded and results were compared using histology-confirmed CIN as the "gold standard." The accuracy of LBC and conventional cytology was statistically equivalent, although the sensitivity of conventional cytology was at least 5 percentage points higher at all cutoff levels. For example, at a cytology cutoff level of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, the sensitivity of LBC was 60.3% for CIN2+ vs. 69.1% for conventional cytology and specificity was 94.1% and 94.5%, respectively. LBC specimens were significantly less likely to be "satisfactory-but-limited-by" (6.5% vs. 27.9%) but significantly more likely to be unsatisfactory (2.2% vs. 0.8%). Thus, in this high-risk population, the sensitivity of LBC is no greater than the sensitivity of conventional cytology. Because of the higher unit cost of LBC, low resource settings should carefully consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of LBC before adopting this new technology. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors & Co-Authors
Taylor, Sylvia M.
United States, New York
Columbia University
Kuhn, Louise
United States, New York
Columbia University
United States, New York
Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center
Dupree, William B.
United States, Allentown
Health Network Laboratories
Denny, Lynette A.
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
de Souza, Michelle
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
Wright, Thomas C.
United States, New York
Columbia University
Statistics
Citations: 80
Authors: 6
Affiliations: 4
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1002/ijc.21434
ISSN:
00207136
e-ISSN:
10970215
Research Areas
Cancer
Study Design
Randomised Control Trial
Cross Sectional Study
Participants Gender
Female