Keywords
liquid-based cytology
cervical cytology
How to Cite
Abstract
The liquid-based cytology technique has been considered an important alternative for achieving the sensitivity of cervix-vaginal cytology exams. This study aimed to assess the variations in the liquid-based cytology technique. A total of 150 cervical samples were collected in duplicate from patients attended at the Clinic of the Hospital Acadêmico do Oeste do Paraná and Health Units of the Municipal District of Cascavel-PR, after the written informed consent form had been signed by them. The 100 collected samples were fixed and preserved in liquid media containing 95% ethanol and 50 samples in 1% formaldehyde in phosphate buffer pH 7.4. The samples were centrifuged at 289 x g and circular smears of the sediment were prepared on microscope slides, which were fixed in 95% ethanol followed by Papanicolaou staining, and mounted in Entellan®. The liquid-based cytology technique showed satisfactory cellularity, adequacy in morphometry and in cells morphology identification. Satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for detecting microrganisms and cellular alterations were also observed. Owing to the fixation and preservation properties of ethanol and formaldehyde, the present study points up that both preparations might be used as alternative fixative agents in liquid-based cytology technique, although further studies for method improvements have to be done.References
1. Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C,Ghiringhello B, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, Parisio F, Pojer A, SchiboniML, Sintoni C, Zorzi M, Segnan N, Confortini M. Accuracy of liquidbased versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologiesfor cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2007;7: 335: 28.
2. Klinkhamer JJMP, Meerding JW, Rosier MWFP, Hanselaar MJA.Liquid-based cervical cytology. A review of the literature with methodsof evidence-based medicine. Cancer. 2003; 99(5): 263-71.
3. Renshaw AA, Mody RD, Molly W, Bentz SJ, Colgan JT. Thesignificance of certification in liquid-based cytology and performancein the College of American Pathologists interleboratory comparisonprogram in cervicovaginal cytopathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130: 1269-1272.
4. Montz FJ, Frederic LB, Ristow ER, Cornelison T. Impact ofincreasing Papanicolaou test sensitivy and compliance: amodeled cost and outcomes analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97:781-788.
5. Marchand L, Mundt M, Klein G, Agarwal SC. Optimal collectiontechnique and devices for a quality pap smear.WMG. 2005; 104(6):51-55.
6. Bethesda 2001. Disponível em http:/www.bethesda2001.cancer.gov.br.acesso 16 de fevereiro 2007.
7. Solomon D, Nayar R. Sistema Bethesda para citopatologia cérvicovaginal. 2th ed Rio de Janeiro: Revinter, 2005.
8. Cibas ES, Ducatman BS. Cytology: Diagnostic principles and clinicalcorrelates. 2nd. London W.B. Saunders Company, 2003.
9. Bibbo M. Comprehensive Cytopathology, 2nd. Philadelphia WBSaunders Company, 1997.
10. Atkinson BF, Silverman JF. Atlas de dificuldades diagnosticas emcitopatologia. Harcourt, 2000.
11. Koss LG, Melamed MR. Koss’ Diagnostic cytology and itshistopathology bases. 5th ed. Philadelphia: JB. Lippincott Company,2006.
12. Silva Filho AM, Longatto-Filho A. Colo uterino e vagina: processosinflamatórios, aspectos histológicos, citológicos e colposcópicos.1thed.Rio de Janeiro: Revinter, 2000.
13. Sawaya GF, Sox HC. Trials that matter: liquid-based cervical cytology:disadvantages seem to outweigh advantages. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(9): 668-669.
14. Alves VAF, Bibbo M, Schmitt FC, Milanezi F, Longatto-Filho A.Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid-basedcytology. A morphologic study. Acta Cytol.2004; 48(2): 187-193.
15. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG,Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: asystematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111(1):167-177.
16. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK. Comparative sensitivities of ThinPrep andPapanicolaou smear for adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and combinedAIS/high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL): comparisonwith HSIL. Cancer. 2007; 111(6): 300-305.
17. Rinas AC, Mittman BW, Le LV, Hartmann K, Cayless J, Singh HK.Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smearsampling devices. Acta Cytol. 2006: 50(1): 55-62.
18. Bishop JW, Bigner HS, Colgan JT, Husain MD, Howell PL,Mcintosh MK, Taylor QD, Sadeghi HM. Multicenter maskedevaluation of AutocytePrep thin layers with matched conventionalsmears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol. 1998; 42:189-197.
19. Ring M, Bolger N, O‘Donnell M, Malkin A, Bermingham N, AkpanE. Mulcahy F, Turner MJ, Griffin M, O’Leary JJ. Evalution ofliquid-based cytology in cervical screening of high-riskpopulations: a split study of colposcopy and genito-urinarymedicine populations. Cytopathology. 2002; 13(3): 152-159.
20. Negri G, Menia E, Egarter-Vigl E, Vittadello F, Mian C. ThinPrepversus conventional Papanicolaou smears in the cytologic follow-upof women with equivocal smears. Cancer Cytopathology. 2003; 99(6):342-345.
21. Hodgson W, Kaplan JK, Rodriguez M, Mchale MT, Rose SG, Elkas CJ.The impact of converting to liquid-based cervical in a militarypopulation. Gynecol Oncol. 2005; 99(2): 422-426.
22. Longatto-Filho A, Pereira SMM, Di Loreto, C, Utagawa ML,Makabe S, Maeda MYS, Marques JA, Santoro CL, Castelo FilhoA. DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventionalsmears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-riskpopulation whit biopsy-based confirmation. Gynecol Oncol.2005;97(2): 497-500.
23. Davey E, Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, Farnsworth A. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides usingthe ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ. 2007; 335(7609): 1-2.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2008 Instituto Adolfo Lutz Journal