Keywords
HPV
cervical smears
How to Cite
Abstract
Liquid-based cytology (LBC) presents several advantages when compared to the conventional smears, such as clean background, residual material for additional cytological preparations
or even for molecular tests to infectious agents identification, mainly HPV. Besides these advantages, LBC detects more lesions than the conventional smears, and also reduce the number of unsatisfactory samples and false negative cases. The goal of this work was to evaluate the cytologic findings of two different LBC methodologies, DNACITOLIQ ® (DIGENE-Brasil) and Autocyte system (Tripath, USA) concerning the adequacy of the samples and diagnosis performance, and compare these results to those reported by conventional smears daily routine analyzed at Adolfo Lutz Institute. A total of 509 samples of DNA- CITOLIQ ® and 398 Autocyte consecutive cases from women examined at Leonor Mendes de Barros Hospital in 2002 (INCODEV ICA-CT-2001-10013 project) were analyzed. From DNACITOLIQ® cases 0.6% were unsatisfactory, 89.3% were negative, 7,1% ASCUS/ AGUS, 2.0% LSIL, 0.8% HSIL and 0.2% squamous carcinoma. Regarding adequacy parameters 89% were satisfactory, 10.0% were limited by absence of glandular cells and 0.4 limited by other reasons. Autocyte system diagnosis were: 0.5% unsatisfactory, 88.2% negative, 3.0% ASCUS/AGUS, 6.8% LSIL and 1.5% HSIL. Conventional smears comprised 33,313 samples where 5.0% were unsatisfactory, 92.6%...
References
1. Velasco J Citología Líquida. VPH Hoje. 1: 8-9, 2001.
2. Takahashi M; Naito M. Application of the cytorich monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology: a prelude to automated primary screening. Acta Cytol; 41:1785-1789, 1997.
3. Gupta PK et al. Processing liquid-based gynecologic specimens; comparison of the available techniques. Acta Cytol ; 45: 995-998, 2001.
4. Bernstein SJ.; Sanchez-ramos L.; Ndubisi B. Liquid – based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears: A metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 185: 308-17, 2001.
5. Mitchell H, MEDLEY G. Cytological reporting of cervical abnormalities according to endocervical status. Br J cancer 67: 585-588, 1993
6. Aurier P et al . Transformation zone location and intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix uterine. BJ Cancer 74: 488-490, 1996.
7. Shirata NK et al. Celularidade dos esfregaços cervicovaginais: importância em programas de garantia de qualidade em citopatologia. J bras Ginec 108(3): 63-66, 1998.
8. Marino JF; Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice. J.Reprod Med, 46(4): 353-358, 2001.
9. Biscotti CV et al. Thin-layer test vs. conventional Pap smear. Analysis of 400 split samples . J.Reprod Med, 47(1): 9-13, 2002.
10. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. J.Reprod Med, 45(11): 912-916, 2000.
11. Solomon D et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA; 287(16), 2002.
12. Germain M et al. A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques. Obstet Gynecol; 84: 168-173, 1994.
13. Lee KR et al. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol; 90:278-284, 1997.
14. Bishop JW. Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology. Preliminary data on 2032 cases from a clinical trial site. Acta Cytol; 41: 15-23, 1997.
15. Fagundes MCS et al. Amostra inadequada em Screening cérvico-vaginal. As principais causas. Laes Haes; 128, 94-100, 2000.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2003 Revista do Instituto Adolfo Lutz