Loading…
Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytology
Liquid‐based cytology (LBC) is believed to have better sensitivity than conventional smears (CSs) and offers the possibility to perform molecular assay. The goal of this work was to study the performance of CS and LBC in a high‐risk population and to compare the results with the hybrid capture (HC)...
Saved in:
Published in: | Diagnostic cytopathology 2004-09, Vol.31 (3), p.169-172 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53 |
container_end_page | 172 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 169 |
container_title | Diagnostic cytopathology |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Utagawa, Maria Lúcia Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria Makabe, Sérgio Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina Marques, José A. Santoro, Carmen L.F. Di Loreto, Celso Aguiar, Luciana Silva Pitolli, Janaina Érika Das Dores, Gerson Botacini Castelo, Adauto Filho, Adhemar Longatto |
description | Liquid‐based cytology (LBC) is believed to have better sensitivity than conventional smears (CSs) and offers the possibility to perform molecular assay. The goal of this work was to study the performance of CS and LBC in a high‐risk population and to compare the results with the hybrid capture (HC) II for high‐risk human papillomavirus (HPV). Samples were collected from selected women with clinical suspicions of low genital tract lesion at Pérola Biygnton Hospital (São Paulo, Brazil). After CS preparation, the brush was introduced in the endocervix and a new sample was collected and rinsed in the preservative medium of the system. The residual material was used to HC2. From 925 cases, LBC was unsatisfactory in 4 (1.51%) cases and CS was unsatisfactory in 100 cases (10.81%); among theses cases HC2+ reactions was observed in 54 (54%) CSs and 3 (21.4%) LBCs. Considering cases with atypia of undetermined significance (squamous and glandular), 85 (77.27%) cases from LBC and 44 (86.4%) from CS were positive for HC2 assay for high‐risk DNA‐HPV. The difference among the methods was not significant (P < 0.38). The diagnosis improvement of LBC in comparison with CS was 86% in satisfactory samples, 92.76% in undetermined atypical lesions (including glandular), 83% in positive low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+), and 86.84% in high‐grade SIL+ (HSIL+). HC2+ reactions were observed in 144 CS cases and 266 LBC cases with abnormalities. Our results have showed that LBC was superior to CS in a high‐risk population to detect lesions with high concordance with HC2+ reactions; CSs also exhibit a high concordance with HC2 assay but with inferior performance to detect lesions. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2004;31:169–172. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/dc.20118 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66848334</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>66848334</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PxCAQhonR6PqR-AsMJ-OlCqUUejSrriYb9eDXjQyUVbRbuqVV99_LuquePDEwzzwZXoT2KTmmhKQnpTlOCaVyDQ0oKURCGCvW0UAKzhNKWLGFtkN4JYQUKc030RblLCsKKQbo4RYa3NnQYVdjwC_u-SVpXXjDjW_6Cjrna2z8tIH4GEs_ibf63daLBlQY6hJXbta7MtEQLDbzzlf-eb6LNiZQBbu3OnfQ_cX53fAyGd-Mroan48QwzmWSZhDXyKQuhAZpgWdgM13mJJdCmAmRIMEKC6ll1HAOJNdaxJnYZVqXnO2gw6W3af2sj99QUxeMrSqore-DyvNoZyyL4NESNK0PobUT1bRuCu1cUaIWGarSqO8MI3qwcvZ6ass_cBVaBJIl8OEqO_9XpM6GP8IV70JnP395aN9ULpjg6vF6pJ7G9Cln6Zl6ZF-duomm</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66848334</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytology</title><source>Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Read and Publish Open Access 2024-2025 (reading list)</source><creator>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia ; Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria ; Makabe, Sérgio ; Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina ; Marques, José A. ; Santoro, Carmen L.F. ; Di Loreto, Celso ; Aguiar, Luciana Silva ; Pitolli, Janaina Érika ; Das Dores, Gerson Botacini ; Castelo, Adauto ; Filho, Adhemar Longatto</creator><creatorcontrib>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia ; Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria ; Makabe, Sérgio ; Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina ; Marques, José A. ; Santoro, Carmen L.F. ; Di Loreto, Celso ; Aguiar, Luciana Silva ; Pitolli, Janaina Érika ; Das Dores, Gerson Botacini ; Castelo, Adauto ; Filho, Adhemar Longatto</creatorcontrib><description>Liquid‐based cytology (LBC) is believed to have better sensitivity than conventional smears (CSs) and offers the possibility to perform molecular assay. The goal of this work was to study the performance of CS and LBC in a high‐risk population and to compare the results with the hybrid capture (HC) II for high‐risk human papillomavirus (HPV). Samples were collected from selected women with clinical suspicions of low genital tract lesion at Pérola Biygnton Hospital (São Paulo, Brazil). After CS preparation, the brush was introduced in the endocervix and a new sample was collected and rinsed in the preservative medium of the system. The residual material was used to HC2. From 925 cases, LBC was unsatisfactory in 4 (1.51%) cases and CS was unsatisfactory in 100 cases (10.81%); among theses cases HC2+ reactions was observed in 54 (54%) CSs and 3 (21.4%) LBCs. Considering cases with atypia of undetermined significance (squamous and glandular), 85 (77.27%) cases from LBC and 44 (86.4%) from CS were positive for HC2 assay for high‐risk DNA‐HPV. The difference among the methods was not significant (P < 0.38). The diagnosis improvement of LBC in comparison with CS was 86% in satisfactory samples, 92.76% in undetermined atypical lesions (including glandular), 83% in positive low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+), and 86.84% in high‐grade SIL+ (HSIL+). HC2+ reactions were observed in 144 CS cases and 266 LBC cases with abnormalities. Our results have showed that LBC was superior to CS in a high‐risk population to detect lesions with high concordance with HC2+ reactions; CSs also exhibit a high concordance with HC2 assay but with inferior performance to detect lesions. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2004;31:169–172. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8755-1039</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/dc.20118</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15349987</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis ; Cytodiagnosis - methods ; Cytological Techniques - methods ; DNACITOLIQ ; Female ; HPV ; Humans ; hybrid capture ; liquid-base cytology ; Pap test ; Papillomaviridae - isolation & purification ; Papillomavirus Infections - diagnosis ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Specimen Handling ; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia - diagnosis ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Vaginal Smears</subject><ispartof>Diagnostic cytopathology, 2004-09, Vol.31 (3), p.169-172</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15349987$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makabe, Sérgio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marques, José A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santoro, Carmen L.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Loreto, Celso</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguiar, Luciana Silva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pitolli, Janaina Érika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das Dores, Gerson Botacini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castelo, Adauto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Filho, Adhemar Longatto</creatorcontrib><title>Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytology</title><title>Diagnostic cytopathology</title><addtitle>Diagn. Cytopathol</addtitle><description>Liquid‐based cytology (LBC) is believed to have better sensitivity than conventional smears (CSs) and offers the possibility to perform molecular assay. The goal of this work was to study the performance of CS and LBC in a high‐risk population and to compare the results with the hybrid capture (HC) II for high‐risk human papillomavirus (HPV). Samples were collected from selected women with clinical suspicions of low genital tract lesion at Pérola Biygnton Hospital (São Paulo, Brazil). After CS preparation, the brush was introduced in the endocervix and a new sample was collected and rinsed in the preservative medium of the system. The residual material was used to HC2. From 925 cases, LBC was unsatisfactory in 4 (1.51%) cases and CS was unsatisfactory in 100 cases (10.81%); among theses cases HC2+ reactions was observed in 54 (54%) CSs and 3 (21.4%) LBCs. Considering cases with atypia of undetermined significance (squamous and glandular), 85 (77.27%) cases from LBC and 44 (86.4%) from CS were positive for HC2 assay for high‐risk DNA‐HPV. The difference among the methods was not significant (P < 0.38). The diagnosis improvement of LBC in comparison with CS was 86% in satisfactory samples, 92.76% in undetermined atypical lesions (including glandular), 83% in positive low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+), and 86.84% in high‐grade SIL+ (HSIL+). HC2+ reactions were observed in 144 CS cases and 266 LBC cases with abnormalities. Our results have showed that LBC was superior to CS in a high‐risk population to detect lesions with high concordance with HC2+ reactions; CSs also exhibit a high concordance with HC2 assay but with inferior performance to detect lesions. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2004;31:169–172. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cytodiagnosis - methods</subject><subject>Cytological Techniques - methods</subject><subject>DNACITOLIQ</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>HPV</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>hybrid capture</subject><subject>liquid-base cytology</subject><subject>Pap test</subject><subject>Papillomaviridae - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Papillomavirus Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Specimen Handling</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Dysplasia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Vaginal Smears</subject><issn>8755-1039</issn><issn>1097-0339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1PxCAQhonR6PqR-AsMJ-OlCqUUejSrriYb9eDXjQyUVbRbuqVV99_LuquePDEwzzwZXoT2KTmmhKQnpTlOCaVyDQ0oKURCGCvW0UAKzhNKWLGFtkN4JYQUKc030RblLCsKKQbo4RYa3NnQYVdjwC_u-SVpXXjDjW_6Cjrna2z8tIH4GEs_ibf63daLBlQY6hJXbta7MtEQLDbzzlf-eb6LNiZQBbu3OnfQ_cX53fAyGd-Mroan48QwzmWSZhDXyKQuhAZpgWdgM13mJJdCmAmRIMEKC6ll1HAOJNdaxJnYZVqXnO2gw6W3af2sj99QUxeMrSqore-DyvNoZyyL4NESNK0PobUT1bRuCu1cUaIWGarSqO8MI3qwcvZ6ass_cBVaBJIl8OEqO_9XpM6GP8IV70JnP395aN9ULpjg6vF6pJ7G9Cln6Zl6ZF-duomm</recordid><startdate>200409</startdate><enddate>200409</enddate><creator>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia</creator><creator>Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria</creator><creator>Makabe, Sérgio</creator><creator>Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina</creator><creator>Marques, José A.</creator><creator>Santoro, Carmen L.F.</creator><creator>Di Loreto, Celso</creator><creator>Aguiar, Luciana Silva</creator><creator>Pitolli, Janaina Érika</creator><creator>Das Dores, Gerson Botacini</creator><creator>Castelo, Adauto</creator><creator>Filho, Adhemar Longatto</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200409</creationdate><title>Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytology</title><author>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia ; Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria ; Makabe, Sérgio ; Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina ; Marques, José A. ; Santoro, Carmen L.F. ; Di Loreto, Celso ; Aguiar, Luciana Silva ; Pitolli, Janaina Érika ; Das Dores, Gerson Botacini ; Castelo, Adauto ; Filho, Adhemar Longatto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cytodiagnosis - methods</topic><topic>Cytological Techniques - methods</topic><topic>DNACITOLIQ</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>HPV</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>hybrid capture</topic><topic>liquid-base cytology</topic><topic>Pap test</topic><topic>Papillomaviridae - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Papillomavirus Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Specimen Handling</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Dysplasia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Vaginal Smears</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makabe, Sérgio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marques, José A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santoro, Carmen L.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Di Loreto, Celso</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aguiar, Luciana Silva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pitolli, Janaina Érika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Das Dores, Gerson Botacini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castelo, Adauto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Filho, Adhemar Longatto</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Diagnostic cytopathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Utagawa, Maria Lúcia</au><au>Miranda Pereira, Sônia Maria</au><au>Makabe, Sérgio</au><au>Yoshié Sakamoto Maeda, Marina</au><au>Marques, José A.</au><au>Santoro, Carmen L.F.</au><au>Di Loreto, Celso</au><au>Aguiar, Luciana Silva</au><au>Pitolli, Janaina Érika</au><au>Das Dores, Gerson Botacini</au><au>Castelo, Adauto</au><au>Filho, Adhemar Longatto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytology</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostic cytopathology</jtitle><addtitle>Diagn. Cytopathol</addtitle><date>2004-09</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>169</spage><epage>172</epage><pages>169-172</pages><issn>8755-1039</issn><eissn>1097-0339</eissn><abstract>Liquid‐based cytology (LBC) is believed to have better sensitivity than conventional smears (CSs) and offers the possibility to perform molecular assay. The goal of this work was to study the performance of CS and LBC in a high‐risk population and to compare the results with the hybrid capture (HC) II for high‐risk human papillomavirus (HPV). Samples were collected from selected women with clinical suspicions of low genital tract lesion at Pérola Biygnton Hospital (São Paulo, Brazil). After CS preparation, the brush was introduced in the endocervix and a new sample was collected and rinsed in the preservative medium of the system. The residual material was used to HC2. From 925 cases, LBC was unsatisfactory in 4 (1.51%) cases and CS was unsatisfactory in 100 cases (10.81%); among theses cases HC2+ reactions was observed in 54 (54%) CSs and 3 (21.4%) LBCs. Considering cases with atypia of undetermined significance (squamous and glandular), 85 (77.27%) cases from LBC and 44 (86.4%) from CS were positive for HC2 assay for high‐risk DNA‐HPV. The difference among the methods was not significant (P < 0.38). The diagnosis improvement of LBC in comparison with CS was 86% in satisfactory samples, 92.76% in undetermined atypical lesions (including glandular), 83% in positive low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL+), and 86.84% in high‐grade SIL+ (HSIL+). HC2+ reactions were observed in 144 CS cases and 266 LBC cases with abnormalities. Our results have showed that LBC was superior to CS in a high‐risk population to detect lesions with high concordance with HC2+ reactions; CSs also exhibit a high concordance with HC2 assay but with inferior performance to detect lesions. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2004;31:169–172. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>15349987</pmid><doi>10.1002/dc.20118</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 8755-1039 |
ispartof | Diagnostic cytopathology, 2004-09, Vol.31 (3), p.169-172 |
issn | 8755-1039 1097-0339 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66848334 |
source | Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Read and Publish Open Access 2024-2025 (reading list) |
subjects | Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia - diagnosis Cytodiagnosis - methods Cytological Techniques - methods DNACITOLIQ Female HPV Humans hybrid capture liquid-base cytology Pap test Papillomaviridae - isolation & purification Papillomavirus Infections - diagnosis Risk Factors Sensitivity and Specificity Specimen Handling Uterine Cervical Dysplasia - diagnosis Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis Vaginal Smears |
title | Pap test in a high-risk population comparison of conventional and liquid-base cytology |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T01%3A42%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pap%20test%20in%20a%20high-risk%20population%20comparison%20of%20conventional%20and%20liquid-base%20cytology&rft.jtitle=Diagnostic%20cytopathology&rft.au=Utagawa,%20Maria%20L%C3%BAcia&rft.date=2004-09&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=169&rft.epage=172&rft.pages=169-172&rft.issn=8755-1039&rft.eissn=1097-0339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/dc.20118&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E66848334%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3558-24a99848b97ba8ea54ae4bd606877cf08a8ae7ea2e31c55a06bb74a98773bbd53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66848334&rft_id=info:pmid/15349987&rfr_iscdi=true |