Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT Liquid-based cytology has been developed as an alternative for conventional cervical cytology. Despite numerous studies and systematic reviews, controversy remains about its diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE To assess the performance of liquid-based cytology compared with conventional cytology in terms of detection of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cluster randomized controlled trial involving 89,784 women aged 30 to 60 years participating in the Dutch cervical screening program at 246 family practices. One hundred twenty-two practices were assigned to use liquid-based cytology and screened 49,222 patients and 124 practices were assigned to use the conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) test and screened 40,562 patients between April 2004 and July 1, 2006. Patients were followed up for 18 months through January 31, 2008. INTERVENTION Screening for CIN using liquid-based cytology or conventional papanicolaou (Pap) test and the blinded review of all follow-up of screen-positive women (blinded to the type of cytology and the initial result). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis of the detection rates of and positive predictive values for histologically verified CIN in both cytology systems. Outcomes are presented as crude and adjusted rate ratios (adjustment for age, urbanization, study site, and period). RESULTS The adjusted detection rate ratios for CIN grade 1+ was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.19); for CIN grade 2+, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.84-1.20); for CIN grade 3+, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.86-1.29); and for carcinoma, 1.69 (95% CI, 0.96-2.99). The adjusted positive predictive value (PPV) ratios, considered at several cytological cutoffs and for various outcomes of CIN did not differ significantly from unity. CONCLUSION This study indicates that liquid-based cytology does not perform better than conventional Pap tests in terms of relative sensitivity and PPV for detection of cervical cancer precursors. TRIAL REGISTRATION trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR1032.

[1]  M. Bibbo,et al.  The revised Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. , 1992, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

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

[3]  S. Kabawat,et al.  Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[4]  M Arbyn,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid‐based cytology * , 2007, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[5]  N. Segnan,et al.  European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second Edition—Summary Document , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  D. Ashby,et al.  Sample size for cluster randomized trials: effect of coefficient of variation of cluster size and analysis method. , 2006, International journal of epidemiology.

[7]  Guillermo Marshall,et al.  A comparison of single and combined visual, cytologic, and virologic tests as screening strategies in a region at high risk of cervical cancer. , 2003, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[8]  Philippe Vielh,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.

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

[10]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

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

[12]  G. Rose,et al.  The impact of converting to liquid-based cervical cytology in a military population. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[13]  Iruka N. Okeke,et al.  Vibrio cholerae O1 from Accra, Ghana carrying a class 2 integron and the SXT element , 2008, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[14]  D. Davey,et al.  ThinPrep® Pap Test™ , 1999, Cancer.

[15]  A. Farnsworth Liquid‐based cytology: an Australian experience * , 2003, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[16]  Nereo Segnan,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.

[17]  G. Schoolnik,et al.  Biofilm Acts as a Microenvironment for Plankton‐Associated Vibrio cholerae in the Aquatic Environment of Bangladesh , 2007, Microbiology and immunology.

[18]  M. Casparie,et al.  Pathology Databanking and Biobanking in The Netherlands, a Central Role for PALGA, the Nationwide Histopathology and Cytopathology Data Network and Archive , 2007, Cellular oncology : the official journal of the International Society for Cellular Oncology.

[19]  J. 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 .

[20]  Birger Jansson,et al.  Random Number Generators , 1967 .

[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]  A. Morabia,et al.  Efficacy of a liquid‐based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer , 2000 .

[23]  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.

[24]  R. Luff,et al.  Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and a fluid-based thin-layer method. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[25]  D. Schledermann,et al.  Significance of atypia in conventional Papanicolaou smears and liquid‐based cytology: a follow‐up study , 2004, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

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

[27]  R. M. Austin,et al.  The promise and risk of a new technology , 1998, Cancer.

[28]  Jacalyn L. Papillo,et al.  Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap Test in Clinical Practice , 1998, Acta Cytologica.

[29]  J. Zhang,et al.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. , 1998, JAMA.

[30]  Y. Takeda,et al.  Emergence of Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Strains of Vibrio cholerae O1 Biotype El Tor among Hospitalized Patients with Cholera in Calcutta, India , 2001, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[31]  M. Mukai,et al.  Papanicolaou tests and molecular analyses using new fluid-based specimen collection technology in 3000 Japanese women , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[32]  A. Saha,et al.  Liquid-based cytology , 2006, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care.

[33]  Xiaonan Xue,et al.  Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[34]  W. Ryd,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program , 2007, Cancer.

[35]  D J Zahniser,et al.  Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor. , 1994, American journal of clinical pathology.

[36]  S. Selvaggi,et al.  Use of the Thin Prep® Pap Test™ in clinical practice , 1999, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[37]  A. Cheung,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology and conventional cervical smears , 2003 .

[38]  M. Duggan,et al.  Comparative study of the ThinPrep Pap test and conventional cytology results in a Canadian cohort , 2006, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[39]  I. Eltoum,et al.  Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. A follow-up study of conventional and liquid-based preparations in a high-risk population. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.

[40]  S. Faruque,et al.  Molecular epidemiology of toxigenic Vibrio cholerae in Bangladesh studied by numerical analysis of rRNA gene restriction patterns , 1995, Journal of clinical microbiology.

[41]  A. Williams Liquid‐based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12‐month periods , 2006, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[42]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening? , 2009, International journal of cancer.

[43]  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.

[44]  D. Schledermann,et al.  Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquid‐based cytology , 2006, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[45]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[46]  L. Massuger,et al.  Cytologic Detection of Cervical Abnormalities Using Liquid-Based Compared With Conventional Cytology: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[47]  C. Destouni,et al.  Experience with a Thin-Layer, Liquid-Based Cervical Cytologic Screening Method , 2003, Acta Cytologica.

[48]  B. Hoelund Implementation of liquid‐based cytology in the screening programme against cervical cancer in the County of Funen, Denmark, and status for the first year , 2003, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[49]  N. Segnan,et al.  European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Europe against cancer programme. , 1993, European journal of cancer.