American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 195, Issue 4 , Pages 965-970 , October 2006

Validation of a low-cost, liquid-based screening method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

  • Judy M. Lee, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Division of Gynecologic Specialties
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Judy M. Lee, MD, MPH, 600 North Wolfe Street, Phipps 249, Baltimore, MD 21287.
    • ,
  • Deidra Kelly, CT (ASCP)

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Division of Cytopathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
    • ,
  • Patti E. Gravitt, PhD

      Affiliations

    • The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
    • ,
  • Zoya Fansler, BA

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Division of Cytopathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
    • ,
  • John A. Maksem, MD

      Affiliations

    • Bostwick Laboratories, Orlando, FL
    • ,
  • Douglas P. Clark, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pathology, Division of Cytopathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Received 15 December 2005 ,Accepted 7 February 2006.

References 

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74–108
  2. Marte C, Kelly P, Cohen M, Fruchter RG, Sedlis A, Gallo L, et al. Papanicolaou smear abnormalities in ambulatory care sites for women infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1232–1237
  3. Wright TC, Ellerbrock TV, Chiasson MA, Van Devanter N, Sun XW. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women infected with human immunodeficiency virus: prevalence, risk factors, and validity of Papanicolaou smears. New York Cervical Disease Study. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:591–597
  4. Schuman P, Ohmit SE, Klein RS, Duerr A, Cu-Uvin S, Jamieson DJ, et al. Longitudinal study of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seropositive and at-risk HIV-seronegative women. J Infect Dis. 2003;188:128–136
  5. Massad LS, Seaberg EC, Watts DH, Hessol NA, Melnick S, Bitterman P, et al. Low incidence of invasive cervical cancer among HIV-infected U.S. women in a prevention program. AIDS. 2004;18:109–113
  6. Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, Ruffing-Kullmann B. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Cytol. 1991;35:8–14
  7. Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, Fox W, Heinzerling RH, Geyer JW, et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:81–89
  8. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, Herrero R, Alfaro M, Bratti MC, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;87:48–55
  9. Johnson T, Maksem JA, Belsheim BL, Roose EB, Klock LA, Eatwell L. Liquid-based cervical-cell collection with brushes and wooden spatulas: a comparison of 100 conventional smears from high-risk women to liquid-fixed cytocentrifuge slides, demonstrating a cost-effective, alternative monolayer slide preparation method. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;22:86–91
  10. Inside the diagnostics industry. Washington, DC: April 2005. Available from: www.g2reports.com.
  11. Maksem JA, Finnemore M, Belsheim BL, Roose EB, Makkapati SR, Eatwell L, et al. Manual method for liquid-based cytology: a demonstration using 1,000 gynecological cytologies collected directly to vial and prepared by a smear-slide technique. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25:334–338
  12. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Alonso de Ruiz P, Lopez-Carrillo L, Najera-Aguilar P, Avila-Ceniceros R, Escandon-Romero C, et al. Validity and reproducibility of cytologic diagnosis in a sample of cervical cancer screening centers in Mexico. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:277–284
  13. Carpenter AB, Davey DD. ThinPrep Pap test: performance and biopsy follow-up in a university hospital. Cancer. 1999;87:105–112
  14. Baker JJ. Conventional and liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison study with clinical and histologic follow-up. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;27:185–188
  15. Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:137–144
  16. Montz FJ, Farber FL, Bristow RE, Cornelison T. Impact of increasing Papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: a modeled cost and outcomes analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(5 Pt 1):781–788
  17. Neville AM, Quinn MA. An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45:289–294
  18. Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Gordillo-Tobar A, Levin C, Mahe C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2158–2168
  19. Schiffman M, Castle PE. The promise of global cervical-cancer prevention. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2101–2104

 Supported by The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine institutional research grant.

PII: S0002-9378(06)00207-9

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.02.001

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 195, Issue 4 , Pages 965-970 , October 2006

Article Tools