Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2012
Comparative study of the results from conventional cervico-vaginal oncotic cytology and liquid-based cytology.
Сравнительное 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.
Stabile Sueli Aparecida Batista, Evangelista Dilson Henrique Ramos, Talamonte Valdely Helena, Lippi Umberto Gazi, Lopes Reginaldo Guedes Coelho
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare two oncotic cervical cytology techniques, the conventional and the liquid-based cytology, in low risk patients for uterine cervical cancer.
METHODS: Comparative prospective study with 100 patients who came to their annual gynecological exam, and were submitted simultaneously to both techniques. We used the McNemar test, with a significance level of p < 0.05 to compare the results obtained related to adequacy of the smear quality, descriptive diagnosis prevalence, guided biopsy confirmation and histology.
RESULTS: Adequacy of the smear was similar for both methods. The quality with squamocolumnar junction in 93% of conventional cytology and in 84% of the liquid-based cytology had statistical significance. As for the diagnosis of atypical cells they were detected in 3% of conventional cytology and in 10% of liquid-based cytology (p = 0.06). Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance were the most prevalent abnormality. The liquid-based cytology performance was better when compared with colposcopy (guided biopsy), presenting sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 100%. There was no cytological and histological concordance for the conventional cytology.
CONCLUSIONS: Liquid-based cytology had a better performance to diagnose atypical cells and the cytohistological concordance was higher than in the conventional cytology.
METHODS: Comparative prospective study with 100 patients who came to their annual gynecological exam, and were submitted simultaneously to both techniques. We used the McNemar test, with a significance level of p < 0.05 to compare the results obtained related to adequacy of the smear quality, descriptive diagnosis prevalence, guided biopsy confirmation and histology.
RESULTS: Adequacy of the smear was similar for both methods. The quality with squamocolumnar junction in 93% of conventional cytology and in 84% of the liquid-based cytology had statistical significance. As for the diagnosis of atypical cells they were detected in 3% of conventional cytology and in 10% of liquid-based cytology (p = 0.06). Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance were the most prevalent abnormality. The liquid-based cytology performance was better when compared with colposcopy (guided biopsy), presenting sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 100%. There was no cytological and histological concordance for the conventional cytology.
CONCLUSIONS: Liquid-based cytology had a better performance to diagnose atypical cells and the cytohistological concordance was higher than in the conventional cytology.