J Pathol Transl Med.  2017 May;51(3):314-319. 10.4132/jptm.2017.03.17.

Comparison of Unsatisfactory Samples from Conventional Smear versus Liquid-Based Cytology in Uterine Cervical Cancer Screening Test

• Jeong H
• Hong SR
• Chae SW
• Jin SY
• Yoon HK
• Lee J
• Kim EK
• Ha ST
• Kim SN
• Park EJ
• Jung JJ
• Sung SH
• Lim SC

• KMID: 2392598
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2017.03.17

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Cervical cytology for uterine cervical cancer screening has transitioned from conventional smear (CS) to liquid-based cytology (LBC), which has many advantages. The aim of this study was to compare the proportion of unsatisfactory specimens from CS versus LBC at multiple institutions including general hospitals and commercial laboratories.
METHODS
Each participating institution provided a minimum of 500 Papanicolaou (Pap) test results for analysis. Pap tests were classified according to the participating institution (commercial laboratory or general hospital) and the processing method (CS, ThinPrep, SurePath, or CellPrep). The causes of unsatisfactory results were classified as technical problems, scant cellularity, or complete obscuring factors.
RESULTS
A total of 38,956 Pap test results from eight general hospitals and three commercial laboratories were analyzed. The mean unsatisfactory rate of LBC was significantly lower than that of CS (1.26% and 3.31%, p = .018). In the LBC method, samples from general hospitals had lower unsatisfactory rates than those from commercial laboratories (0.65% vs 2.89%, p = .006). The reasons for unsatisfactory results were heterogeneous in CS. On the other hand, 66.2% of unsatisfactory results in LBC were due to the scant cellularity.
CONCLUSIONS
Unsatisfactory rate of cervical cancer screening test results varies according to the institution and the processing method. LBC has a significantly lower unsatisfactory rate than CS.

Keyword

Papanicolaou test; Cervical cytology; Unsatisfactory; Liquid-based cytology; Conventional smear

MeSH Terms

Hand
Hospitals, General
Mass Screening*
Methods
Papanicolaou Test
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms*

Reference

1. Park MH. Cervical cancer screening in Korea. Korean J Cytopathol. 2003; 14:43–52.

2. Hoda RS, Loukeris K, Abdul-Karim FW. Gynecologic cytology on conventional and liquid-based preparations: a comprehensive review of similarities and differences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013; 41:257–78.

3. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185:308–17.

4. 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; 90:137–44.

5. Oh JK, Shin HR, Gong G, Sohn JH, Khang SK. Diagnostic accuracy of conventional Pap test, liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus DNA testing in cervical cancer screening in Korea: a meta-analysis. Korean J Epidemiol. 2008; 30:178–87.

6. Kituncharoen S, Tantbirojn P, Niruthisard S. Comparison of unsatisfactory rates and detection of abnormal cervical cytology between conventional Papanicolaou smear and liquid-based cytology (Sure Path(R)). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 16:8491–4.

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

8. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009; 302:1757–64.

9. Obwegeser J, Schneider V. Thin-layer cervical cytology: a new meta-analysis. Lancet. 2006; 367:88–9.

10. Rosa M, Pragasam P, Saremian J, Aoalin A, Graf W, Mohammadi A. The unsatisfactory ThinPrep Pap test: analysis of technical aspects, most common causes, and recommendations for improvement. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013; 41:588–94.

11. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes. 2nd ed. New York: Springer;2004.

12. Biro C, Hyne S, Roberts J, Thurloe J, Bowditch R. Liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology. Lancet. 2006; 367:1481–2.

13. Pairwuti S. False-negative Papanicolaou smears from women with cancerous and precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 1991; 35:40–6.

14. van der Graaf Y, Vooijs GP, Gaillard HL, Go DM. Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening. Acta Cytol. 1987; 31:434–8.

15. Min KJ, Lee YJ, Suh M, et al. The Korean guideline for cervical cancer screening. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015; 26:232–9.

16. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007; 335:28.

17. Guidos BJ, Selvaggi SM. Use of the Thin Prep Pap test in clinical practice. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999; 20:70–3.

18. Strander B, Andersson-Ellström A, Milsom I, Rådberg T, Ryd W. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer. 2007; 111:285–91.

19. Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, et al. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials. BJOG. 2010; 117:1067–73.

20. Lee HK, Kim SN, Khang SK, Kang CS, Yoon HK. Quality control program and its results of Korean Society for Cytopathologists. Korean J Cytopathol. 2008; 19:65–71.

21. Moriarty AT, Clayton AC, Zaleski S, et al. Unsatisfactory reporting rates: 2006 practices of participants in the college of american pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in gynecologic cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133:1912–6.

22. Fontaine D, Narine N, Naugler C. Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2012; 2:e000847.

23. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Vedder JE, Arbyn M, Bulten J. Causes and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012; 136:76–83.

24. Song LH, Goh ES, Phang LC, Poh WT, Tay SK. Technical aspect of ThinPrep. Singapore Med J. 2000; 41:575–8.

25. Owens CL, Peterson D, Kamineni A, et al. Effects of transitioning from conventional methods to liquid-based methods on unsatisfactory Papanicolaou tests: results from a multicenter US study. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013; 121:568–75.