A Comparision of AutoCyte PREP with Matched Conventional Smear in Cervicovaginal Cytology

This study was designed to compare the performance of liquid-based preparation from the AutoCyte PREP with the conventional cervicovaginal smear in masked split-samples. In randomly selected 840 cases, the conventional smear was always prepared first, and the AutoCyte PREP used the resldual cells on the collecting device. Parallel AutoCyte PREP slides and matched conventional smears were screened in a blind fashion. All abnormals and 10% random normal cases were reviewed by two pathologists in a blind fashion. The Bethesda System was used for reporting the diagnosis and specimen adequacy. The diagnoses from the two methods were agreed exactly in 767(91.3%) of 840 cases. The AutoCyte PREP demonstrated a 25% overall improvement in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesion(SIL). The ratio of ASCUS to SIL was decreased as 0.45 compared with 1.00 of conventional smear. The AutoCyte PREP produced excellent cellular preservation and superior sensitivity for detection of atypical cells as compared to the conventional smear. It makes us to be able to subclassify ASCUS into from WNL to HSIL. We thought that the AutoCyte PREP method might contribute to increase the detection rate of abnormal cells than conventional methods.

[1]  J. W. Kim,et al.  Comparing the Accuracy of ThinPrep Pap Tests and Conventional Papanicolaou Smears on the Basis of the Histologic Diagnosis , 2001, Acta Cytologica.

[2]  U. Baandrup.  Sampling, Sampling Errors and Specimen Preparation , 2000, Acta Cytologica.

[3]  P. Vassilakos,et al.  Direct-to-Vial Use of the AutoCyte PREP Liquid-Based Preparation for Cervical-Vaginal Specimens in Three European Laboratories , 1999, Acta Cytologica.

[4]  L. Howell,et al.  The AutoCyte Preparation System for Gynecologic Cytology , 1998, Acta Cytologica.

[5]  I. Ramzy,et al.  Increased Detection of Epithelial Cell Abnormalities by Liquid-Based Gynecologic Cytology Preparations , 1998, Acta Cytologica.

[6]  L. Mango,et al.  Quality Assurance/Control Issues , 1998, Acta Cytologica.

[7]  L. Howell,et al.  Multicenter Masked Evaluation of AutoCyte PREP Thin Layers with Matched Conventional Smears , 1998, Acta Cytologica.

[8]  P. Boffetta,et al.  Cancer in developing countries , 1994, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[9]  J. Linder,et al.  Preliminary evaluation of cyto‐rich: An improved automated cytology preparation , 1993, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[10]  N. Sneige,et al.  Quality‐assurance study of simultaneously sampled, non‐correlating cervical cytology and biopsies , 1993, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[11]  W. Watring,et al.  Presentation of cervical cancer. , 1991, Gynecologic oncology.

[12]  J. Fraumeni,et al.  Recent trends in cervix uteri cancer , 1989, Cancer.

[13]  J. Goellner,et al.  False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. , 1985, Acta cytologica.

[14]  J. Bishop,et al.  Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology. Preliminary data on 2,032 cases from a clinical trial site. , 1997, Acta cytologica.