Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare test performance characteristics of conventional Pap tests and liquid-based cervical cytology samples. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies, published between 1991 and 2007, were retrieved through PubMed/EmBase searching and completed by consultation of other sources. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Studies were selected if a conventional and a liquid-based sample were prepared from the same woman or when one or the other type of sample was taken from a separate but similar cohort. The current systematic review and meta-analysis is restricted to studies where all subjects were submitted to gold standard verification, based on colposcopy and histology of colposcopy-targeted biopsies, allowing computation of absolute and relative test validity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse. Randomized trials were selected as well if all test-positive cases were verified with the same gold standard, allowing computation of the relative sensitivity. Impact of study characteristics on accuracy was assessed by subgroup meta-analyses, meta-regression, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve regression. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: The relative sensitivity, pooled from eight studies, with complete gold standard verification and from one randomized clinical trial, did not differ significantly from unity. Also, the specificity, considering high-grade and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions as cutoff, was similar in conventional and liquid cytology. However, a lower pooled specificity was found for liquid-based cytology when presence of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was the cutoff (ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.84–0.98). Differences in study characteristics did not explain interstudy heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Liquid-based cervical cytology is neither more sensitive nor more specific for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia compared with the conventional Pap test.

[1]  K. Jørgensen.  [Cervix cancer screening]. , 2008, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[2]  A. Herbert,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology , 2007, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[3]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  J. Dillner,et al.  Translational Mini‐Review Series on Vaccines:
Monitoring of human papillomavirus vaccination , 2007, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[5]  Roger M Harbord,et al.  A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[6]  Haitao Chu,et al.  Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity with sparse data: a generalized linear mixed model approach. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  J. Dillner,et al.  Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. , 2006, Vaccine.

[8]  Thomas C Wright,et al.  Direct comparison of liquid‐based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[9]  L. Irwig,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 , 2006, The Lancet.

[10]  J. Dillner,et al.  Clinical utility of HPV-DNA detection: triage of minor cervical lesions, follow-up of women treated for high-grade CIN: an update of pooled evidence. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[11]  H. Kitchener,et al.  The comparative diagnostic accuracy of conventional and liquid‐based cytology in a colposcopic setting , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  J. A. Marques,et al.  DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[13]  M. Fremont-Smith,et al.  Comparison of the Surepath™ liquid‐based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct‐to‐vial study , 2004, Cancer.

[14]  M Sculpher,et al.  A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[15]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Comparing conventional and liquid‐based smears from a consecutive series of 297 subjects referred to colposcopy assessment , 2004, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[16]  J Chilcott,et al.  Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[17]  Joakim Dillner,et al.  Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[18]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[19]  A. Hanselaar,et al.  Liquid‐based cervical cytology , 2003, Cancer.

[20]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  D. Sherer,et al.  Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. , 2003, Gynecologic oncology.

[22]  S. Feig.  IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention , 2003 .

[23]  J. Coste,et al.  Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  A. P. de Leon,et al.  Estimation of Sensitivity and Specificity Arising from Validity Studies with Incomplete Designs , 2002 .

[26]  R. Moseley,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology: is this the way forward for cervical screening? , 2002, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[27]  L. Becker,et al.  Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional Papanicolaou test? A systematic review. , 2001, The Journal of family practice.

[28]  C M Rutter,et al.  A hierarchical regression approach to meta‐analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  J. Obwegeser,et al.  Does Liquid-Based Technology Really Improve Detection of Cervical Neoplasia? , 2001, Acta Cytologica.

[30]  S J Bernstein,et al.  Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. , 2001, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[31]  J. Bishop,et al.  Accuracy of Thin-Layer Cytology in Patients Undergoing Cervical Cone Biopsy , 2001, Acta Cytologica.

[32]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research , 2000 .

[33]  J. Chilcott,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology for cervical screening , 2000, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[34]  S. Datta,et al.  Setting the Target for a Better Cervical Screening Test: Characteristics of a Cost‐Effective Test for Cervical Neoplasia Screening , 2000, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[35]  S. Gutman.  Labeling liquid-based systems: FDA clarification. , 2000, Acta cytologica.

[36]  J. Bishop,et al.  New technologies in gynecologic cytology. , 2000, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[37]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[38]  D. Grimes,et al.  New technologies in cervical cytology screening: a word of caution. , 1999, Obstetrics and gynecology.

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

[40]  Christopher H Schmid,et al.  Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough , 1998, The Lancet.

[41]  S. Sharp,et al.  Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[42]  L. Mango,et al.  Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing , 1997, Cancer.

[43]  T. Wright,et al.  Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears. A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. , 1996, Acta cytologica.

[44]  T. Wright,et al.  Diagnostic performance of Hybrid Capture human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid assay combined with liquid-based cytologic study. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[45]  L E Moses,et al.  Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[46]  Diane Solomon,et al.  The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses , 1994, Springer US.

[47]  R. Luff,et al.  The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. , 1992, American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[48]  R. Luff,et al.  The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. , 1992, American journal of clinical pathology.

[49]  D. Tsaur.  The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: Report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop , 1992, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[50]  B Bunnag,et al.  Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[51]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[52]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy , 1986 .

[53]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.

[54]  H. Fox,et al.  "CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA" , 1982, The Lancet.

[55]  W. G. Cochran.  The combination of estimates from different experiments. , 1954 .

[56]  Recommanda Tions.  Agence Nationale d’Accréditation et d’Evaluation en Santé (ANAES) , 2008, Acta Endoscopica.

[57]  A. Bondi,et al.  Technical evaluation of the new thin layer device cellslide™ (Menarini Diagnostics) , 2005, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[58]  立道 昌幸.  International Agency of Research on Cancer 国際癌研究機構(IARC)留学記 , 2003 .

[59]  A. Culyer,et al.  Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. , 2000, Health technology assessment.

[60]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Evaluation of cervical cytology. , 1999, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[61]  J. Eisenberg.  Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. , 1999, Medical care.

[62]  Stephen J. Sharp,et al.  Meta-analysis regression , 1998 .

[63]  Diane Solomon,et al.  The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-30, 1991. , 1993, Acta cytologica.