Acta cytologica · 2007
Comparison of two preparation methods for endocervical evaluation.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kim Hye Sun, Park Jong Sook, Park Ji Young, Hong Sung Ran, Seong Seok Ju, Kim Hy Sook, Wilbur David C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of SurePath liquid-based preparation method for examination of endocervical brush specimens as a substitute for conventionally prepared cytology methods for evaluating the endocervical canal during colposcopic examination and biopsy.
STUDY DESIGN: Paired SurePath liquid-based test slides and conventional smears were obtained using an endocervical brush in a split sample protocol before biopsy at the time of colposcopy. The level of agreement between cytologic results obtained was assessed. Accuracy and operating characteristics were evaluated compared to histologic follow-up.
RESULTS: Agreement between cytology results for the methods was excellent. The overall kappa was 0.924 (p = 0.0000). There was exact agreement on interpretation between the methods in 283 of 299 cases (94.6%). Cytohistologic follow-up results correlation were: SurePath liquid-based Pap test results and conventional smear results agreed with histology results in 47.8% and 49.2% of cases, respectively. Allowing for a discrepancy within 1 level of severity of cytologic grade, agreements were 76.6% and 77.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the SurePath method is equivalent to conventional endocervical brush cytology preparation and performs well for detection of cervical intraepithelial lesions and cancer. SurePath is acceptable for endocervical evaluation as a substitute for endocervical curettage at colposcopic biopsy.
STUDY DESIGN: Paired SurePath liquid-based test slides and conventional smears were obtained using an endocervical brush in a split sample protocol before biopsy at the time of colposcopy. The level of agreement between cytologic results obtained was assessed. Accuracy and operating characteristics were evaluated compared to histologic follow-up.
RESULTS: Agreement between cytology results for the methods was excellent. The overall kappa was 0.924 (p = 0.0000). There was exact agreement on interpretation between the methods in 283 of 299 cases (94.6%). Cytohistologic follow-up results correlation were: SurePath liquid-based Pap test results and conventional smear results agreed with histology results in 47.8% and 49.2% of cases, respectively. Allowing for a discrepancy within 1 level of severity of cytologic grade, agreements were 76.6% and 77.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the SurePath method is equivalent to conventional endocervical brush cytology preparation and performs well for detection of cervical intraepithelial lesions and cancer. SurePath is acceptable for endocervical evaluation as a substitute for endocervical curettage at colposcopic biopsy.