BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2008
A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Sykes P H, Harker D Y, Miller A, Whitehead M, Neal H, Wells J E, Peddie D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of cervical cytology using conventional smears and SurePath liquid-based cytology (LBC).
DESIGN: Prospective randomised evaluation of diagnostic test.
SETTING: A single institution colposcopy clinic.
POPULATION: Women attending first visit colposcopy appointments were offered entry into the study.
METHODS: Cervical cytology samples from 913 women of age 16-75 years were randomly processed as SurePath LBC or conventional smears. Conventional smears were taken for 453 women and a SurePath LBC taken for 451 women. Cytology results were correlated with colposcopic findings and histology from colposcopic biopsies, treatment and follow up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the sensitivity of SurePath LBC and conventional smears for histologically proven abnormality. Other outcome measures include a comparison of their sensitivity for high-grade abnormalities and their satisfactory rate.
RESULTS: Accounting for all randomised samples, there was a trend towards improved sensitivity for SurePath LBC (79.1 versus 73.7%, P = 0.1). However, excluding unsatisfactory cytology (and samples not taken) eliminated this trend; the sensitivity for both LBC and conventional smears for any epithelial abnormality was 81%. With a threshold of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US), both SurePath LBC and conventional smears had a sensitivity of 92% for high-grade lesions. SurePath LBC was less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory (2.7 versus 9.1%, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this context, with a threshold of ASC-US, both SurePath LBC and conventional smears offer high sensitivity for the detection of CIN2/3, but SurePath LBC is less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory.
DESIGN: Prospective randomised evaluation of diagnostic test.
SETTING: A single institution colposcopy clinic.
POPULATION: Women attending first visit colposcopy appointments were offered entry into the study.
METHODS: Cervical cytology samples from 913 women of age 16-75 years were randomly processed as SurePath LBC or conventional smears. Conventional smears were taken for 453 women and a SurePath LBC taken for 451 women. Cytology results were correlated with colposcopic findings and histology from colposcopic biopsies, treatment and follow up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare the sensitivity of SurePath LBC and conventional smears for histologically proven abnormality. Other outcome measures include a comparison of their sensitivity for high-grade abnormalities and their satisfactory rate.
RESULTS: Accounting for all randomised samples, there was a trend towards improved sensitivity for SurePath LBC (79.1 versus 73.7%, P = 0.1). However, excluding unsatisfactory cytology (and samples not taken) eliminated this trend; the sensitivity for both LBC and conventional smears for any epithelial abnormality was 81%. With a threshold of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US), both SurePath LBC and conventional smears had a sensitivity of 92% for high-grade lesions. SurePath LBC was less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory (2.7 versus 9.1%, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this context, with a threshold of ASC-US, both SurePath LBC and conventional smears offer high sensitivity for the detection of CIN2/3, but SurePath LBC is less likely to be reported as unsatisfactory.