Gynecologic oncology · 2005
Efficacy assessment of CellSlide in liquid-based gynecologic cytology.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Jae-Hun, Park Eun-Jung, Choi Yoo-Duk, Kim Hyung-Seok, Lee Young-Jik, Ko Hyang-Mi, Kim Kyung-Soo, Nam Jong-Hee, Park Chang-Soo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of CellSlidetrade mark (CS) method in liquid-based gynecologic cytology.
METHODS: We compared 1221 specimens prepared by both CS and conventional techniques to evaluate specimen adequacy and cytologic diagnoses. Sensitivity and specificity of these techniques were analyzed in 54 cases using the available histological data.
RESULTS: Quality limiting factors, such as obscuring inflammation or blood, were markedly reduced in CS (0.2%) compared to the conventional smear (4.9%). There was a complete agreement in the Bethesda 2001 diagnosis between these methods in 1132 cases (92.7%) out of 1221. 16.7% more ASC cases and 37.5% more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and 21.4% more high-grade SIL (HSIL) were detected on the CS slides than on the conventional smears. Sensitivity rates, relative to histological data, were 91.4% (CS) and 74.3% (conventional) and specificity rates were same (89.5%) for ASC and more severe lesions. Infectious organisms (Trichomonas and Candida, etc.) were readily identifiable in both methods.
CONCLUSIONS: CS preparation is more sensitive and equally specific in detecting epithelial abnormalities when compared to the conventional smear. In addition, it has a lower incidence of unsatisfactory results with hypocellularity or >75% obscuration of cells.
METHODS: We compared 1221 specimens prepared by both CS and conventional techniques to evaluate specimen adequacy and cytologic diagnoses. Sensitivity and specificity of these techniques were analyzed in 54 cases using the available histological data.
RESULTS: Quality limiting factors, such as obscuring inflammation or blood, were markedly reduced in CS (0.2%) compared to the conventional smear (4.9%). There was a complete agreement in the Bethesda 2001 diagnosis between these methods in 1132 cases (92.7%) out of 1221. 16.7% more ASC cases and 37.5% more low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) and 21.4% more high-grade SIL (HSIL) were detected on the CS slides than on the conventional smears. Sensitivity rates, relative to histological data, were 91.4% (CS) and 74.3% (conventional) and specificity rates were same (89.5%) for ASC and more severe lesions. Infectious organisms (Trichomonas and Candida, etc.) were readily identifiable in both methods.
CONCLUSIONS: CS preparation is more sensitive and equally specific in detecting epithelial abnormalities when compared to the conventional smear. In addition, it has a lower incidence of unsatisfactory results with hypocellularity or >75% obscuration of cells.