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

OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to validate a low-cost, liquid-based method for cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN We conducted a retrospective, split-sample comparison of 300 liquid-based cervical cytology samples from a group of 150 human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive women and 150 women from low-risk general gynecology clinics whose specimens were screened via standard liquid-based methodology as part of routine care. Residual samples from each specimen were used to prepare a slide using a novel, inexpensive manual membrane method of liquid-based cytology. These slides were screened by a cytotechnologist and abnormal cases were reviewed by a pathologist. Final diagnoses from the manual membrane method of liquid-based cytology slides were compared with the original diagnoses and available cervical biopsy data. RESULTS There was good overall agreement between the manual membrane method of liquid-based cytology and original cytology diagnoses (76.3% agreement; kappa = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.59). Using available biopsy data to determine the accuracy of each method to identify high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, the manual membrane method of liquid-based cytology method was found to have a higher sensitivity (71.4% versus 57.1%) and lower specificity (82.1% versus 89.7%). The slightly higher referral rate to colposcopy using the manual membrane method of liquid-based cytology method was limited to women from the low-risk general gynecology clinics (16.7% versus 12.0%, P = .05). CONCLUSION The low-cost manual membrane method of liquid-based cytology cervical cytology method is comparable with a standard commercial method. Consequently, it may be of value in alternative screening strategies in resource-limited settings.

[1]  P. Lheureux Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. , 1998, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[2]  John A. Maksem,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 , 2001, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[3]  E. Sprenger,et al.  The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. , 1996, Acta cytologica.

[4]  K. Anastos,et al.  Low incidence of invasive cervical cancer among HIV-infected US women in a prevention program , 2003, AIDS.

[5]  T. Cornelison,et al.  Impact of Increasing Papanicolaou Test Sensitivity and Compliance: A Modeled Cost and Outcomes Analysis , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  Sue J Goldie,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  M. Chiasson,et al.  Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women infected with human immunodeficiency virus: Prevalence, risk factors, and validity of papanicolaou smears , 1994 .

[8]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  The promise of global cervical-cancer prevention. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  John J. Baker,et al.  Conventional and liquid‐based cervicovaginal cytology: A comparison study with clinical and histologic follow‐up , 2002, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[10]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 , 2005, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[11]  M. Sherman,et al.  Utility of liquid‐based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening , 1999, Cancer.

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

[13]  K. Shah,et al.  Longitudinal study of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seropositive and at-risk HIV-seronegative women. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

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

[15]  W. Lehmacher,et al.  The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. , 1991, Acta cytologica.

[16]  M. Quinn,et al.  An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting , 2005, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[17]  L. López-Carrillo,et al.  Validity and reproducibility of cytologic diagnosis in a sample of cervical cancer screening centers in Mexico. , 1997, Acta cytologica.

[18]  J. Maksem,et al.  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 , 2000, Diagnostic cytopathology.