JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Comparison of Unsatisfactory Rates and Detection of Abnormal Cervical Cytology Between Conventional Papanicolaou Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology (Sure Path®)
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Comparison of Unsatisfactory Rates and Detection of Abnormal Cervical Cytology Between Conventional Papanicolaou Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology (Sure Path®)
Kituncharoen, Saroot; Tantbirojn, Patou; Niruthisard, Somchai;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Purpose: To compare unsatisfactory rates and detection of abnormal cervical cytology between conventional cytology or Papanicolaou smear (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC). Materials and Methods: A total of 23,030 cases of cervical cytology performed at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital during 2012-2013 were reviewed. The percentage unsatisfactory and detection rates of abnormal cytology were compared between CC and LBC methods. Results: There was no difference in unsatisfactory rates between CC and LBC methods (0.1% vs. 0.1%, p
 Keywords
Cervical cancer screening;conventional cytology;detection rate;liquid based cytology;unsatisfactory rate;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Cervical cytology and human papillomavirus among asymptomatic healthy volunteers in Vientiane, Lao PDR, BMC Cancer, 2017, 17, 1  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Akamatsu S, Kodama S, Himeji Y, et al (2012). A comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology in cervical cancer screening. Acta Cytol, 56, 370-4 crossref(new window)

2.
Burnley C, Dudding N, Parker M, et al (2011). Glandular neoplasia and borderline endocervical reporting rates before and after conversion to the Sure Path(TM) liquid-based cytology (LBC) system. Diagn Cytopathol, 39, 869-74 crossref(new window)

3.
Canda MT, Namik D, Orcun S, et al (2009). Clinical results of the liquid-based cervical cytology tool, liqui-preptm, in comparison with conventional smears for detection of squamous cell abnormalities. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 399-402

4.
Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, et al (2010). Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials. Br J Obstets Gynecol, 117, 1067-73 crossref(new window)

5.
Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al (2006). Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet, 367, 122-32 crossref(new window)

6.
Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, et al (2004). Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer, 102, 269-79 crossref(new window)

7.
Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T, et al (2010). Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol, 38, 318-26

8.
Kirschner B, Simonsen K, Junge J (2006). Comparisons of conventional papanicolaou smear and surepath liquid-based cytology in the copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer. Cytopathol, 17, 187-94 crossref(new window)

9.
Schledermann D, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B (2006). Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquidbased cytology. Diagn Cytopathol, 34, 780-5 crossref(new window)

10.
Singh VB, Gupta N, Nijhawan R, et al (2015). Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical Pap smears: experience from the first 1000 split samples. Indian J Pathol Microbiol, 58, 17-21 crossref(new window)

11.
Sylvia T, louise K, William D, et al (2006). Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer, 118, 957-62 crossref(new window)

12.
Wilailak S (2009). Epidemiologic report of gynecologic cancer in Thailand. J Gynecol Oncol, 20, 81-3 crossref(new window)