Citation Information :
Agarwal P, Gupta R, Kakkar M, Mishra T, Agrawal D, Dahiya S. Comparison of Liquid-based Cytology and Conventional Papnicolaou Smear as a Screening Tool in High-risk Females. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2019; 11 (3):156-160.
Introduction: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women in India. Certain high-risk behavior is associated with an increased incidence of cervical cancers. Detection of its premalignant lesions is of utmost importance, which can be easily done by screening methods such as conventional Pap (CP) and liquid-based cytology (LBC).
Aim: The aim of the present study was to ascertain the effectiveness of CP and LBC as screening methods in high-risk group females and to determine if any one method is superior to the other.
Materials and methods: This study was conducted over a period of 6 months at SN Medical College, Agra. All high-risk group females were included in the study and paired samples for CP and LBC were collected from such patients. A total of 40 such cases were encountered during our study period. Patients having abnormal vaginal bleeding with known uterine or hormonal cause and known case of invasive carcinoma cervix were excluded from the study.
Results: A maximum number of cases were in the reproductive age group, most common age of presentation being 31–40 years (35%) followed by 20–30 years (32.5%). A majority of patients were presented with a history of early sexual activity (<18 years) (52.5%), followed by multiparity (25%). Overall CP had 100% sensitivity while LBC had a sensitivity of 91.6%. However, LBC detected one additional case of ASCUS and two additional cases of HSIL over CP. So LBC detected more cases but with a slightly decreased sensitivity over CP.
Conclusion: Both the screening methods are very effective and sensitive in the detection of premalignant lesions with slight discordance of grade on histology. Thus, we conclude that cervical cytology is very effective in the detection of premalignant lesions with the sensitivity of almost 100%. In developing countries such as India, where finances pose a major problem, conventional method is as good as LBC.
Zarchi MK, Peighmbari F, et al. A Comparison of 3 Ways of Conventional Pap Smear, Liquid Based Cytology and Colposcopy vs Cervical Biopsy for Early Diagnosis of Premalignant Lesions or Cervical Cancer in Women with Abnormal Conventonal Pap Test. Int J Biomed Sci 2013;9(4):205–210.
Haghighi F, Ghanbarzadeh N, et al. A Comparison of Liquid Based Cytology with Conventional Papanicolaou Smears in Cervical Dysplasia Diagnosis. Adv Biomd Res 2016;5:162. DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.192735.
Nucci MR, Lee KR, et al. In: Fletcher CDM ed. Diagnostic Histopathology of Tumors. 4th ed. Elsevier; 2013. p. 814.
Gibb RK, Martens MG. The impact of Liquid- Based Cytology in Decreasing the Incidence of Cervical Cancer. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2011;4:S2–S11.
Singh VB, Gupta N, et al. Liquid-Based Cytology versus Conventional Cytology for Evaluation of Cervical Pap Smears: Experience from the First 1000 Split Samples. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2015;58(1):17–21. DOI: 10.4103/0377-4929.151157.
Pankaj S, Nazneen S, et al. Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology: A Study of Cervical Cancer Screening at a Tertiary Care Center in Bihar. Indian J Cancer 2018;55(1):80–83. DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_352_17.
Eddy DM. Secondary prevention of cancer: an overview. Bull World Health Organ 1986;64:421–429.
Sherwani RK, Khan T, et al. Conventional Pap smear and liquid based cytology for cervical cancer screening-a comparative study. J Cytol 2007;24:167–172. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9371.41888.
Taylor S, Kuhn L, et al. Direct comparison of liquid based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer 2006;118:957–962. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.21434.
Monsonego J, Autillo-Touati A, et al. Liquid based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study. Br J Cancer 2001;84(3):360–366. DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1588.
Cheung AN, Szeto EF, et al. Liquid  based cytology and conventional cervical smears. Cancer Cytopathol 2003;99:331–335. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11786.
Zheng B, Austin RM, et al. Bethesda System Reporting Rates for Conventional Papanicolaou Tests and Liquid based Cytology in a Large Chinese, College of American Pathologists-Certified Independent Medical Laboratory Analysis of 1 394 389 Papanicolaou Test Reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:373–377. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2014-0070-OA.
Filho AL, Levi JE, et al. Critical Analyses of the Introduction of Liquid based Cytology in a Public Health Service of the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Acta Cytol 2015;59:273–277. DOI: 10.1159/000435801.
Luthra UK, Chishti M, et al. Performance of monolayered cervical smears in a gynecology outpatient setting in Kuwait. Acta Cytol 2002;46:303–309. DOI: 10.1159/000326726.
Lerma E, Quintana MJ, et al. Effectiveness of Liquid based Cytology and Papanicolaou Tests in a Low Risk Population. Acta Cytol 2007;51:399–406. DOI: 10.1159/000325754.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer Paul JJM, et al. Cytologic Detection of Cervical Abnormalities Using Liquid based Compared with Conventional Cytology A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1327–1334. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818c2b20.
Howell LP, Davis RL, et al. The Autocyte preparation system for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171–177. DOI: 10.1159/000331542.
Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, et al. Liquid based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional papnicolaou smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308–317. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.116736.
Ilter E, Midi A, et al. Comparison of conventional and liquid based cytology: do the diagnostic benefits outweigh the financial aspect? Turk J Med Sci 2012;42(1):1200–1206.
Davey E, Barratt A, 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. Lancet 2006;367:122–132. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06) 67961-0.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, et al. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167–177. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3.