open access

Vol 92, No 5 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-03-08
Get Citation

The comparison of two methods in cervical smear screening — which method is better for smear adequacy rates?

Işık Kaban, Besim Haluk Bacanakgil1, Sevim Koca2
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2020.0185
·
Pubmed: 33751505
·
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(5):335-338.
Affiliations
  1. Istanbul Training and Research Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics Department Istanbul, Turkey
  2. Istanbul Training and Research Hospital Pathology Department Istanbul, istanbul, Turkey

open access

Vol 92, No 5 (2021)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2021-03-08

Abstract

Objectives: In the cervical smear screening test as a sample collection method for liquid-based thin layer cytology, classically the collecting device is placed into a liquid fixative solution and vigorously swirled or rotated ten times in the solution and the collection device is removed from the solution. In this study, a plastic smear brush was used as the collection device. After the cervical cell sample was obtained, the smear brush was detached from the stick and left in the solution and given to the laboratory. Our aim in the study is to examine whether smear inadequacy rates have decreased with the method used in the study compared to the classical method.

Material and methods: While the classical technique which the collecting device is placed into a solution and mixed and removed from the solution is defined as Method 1. The technique used in the study was defined as Method 2. The cervical smear screening test results obtained by two different methods in two consecutive time periods were analyzed. The two methods were compared using chi-square test in terms of smear inadequacy.

Results: A total of 2129 test results, including 1129 smears in Method 1 and 1000 smears in Method 2 were examined. The mean ages of the patients tested in both methods were similar (36 ± 6.1 and 37 ± 6.7). Abnormal test result rate was similar for Method 1 and Method 2 (5.8% vs 4.9%, respectively). The inadequate sample rate was higher in Method 1 than Method 2  (8.3% vs 2.1%, respectively).

Conclusions: The study showed that leaving the smear brush in the solution is a better way to reduce the inadequacy sample rates. This result may guide clinicians about smear techniques.

Abstract

Objectives: In the cervical smear screening test as a sample collection method for liquid-based thin layer cytology, classically the collecting device is placed into a liquid fixative solution and vigorously swirled or rotated ten times in the solution and the collection device is removed from the solution. In this study, a plastic smear brush was used as the collection device. After the cervical cell sample was obtained, the smear brush was detached from the stick and left in the solution and given to the laboratory. Our aim in the study is to examine whether smear inadequacy rates have decreased with the method used in the study compared to the classical method.

Material and methods: While the classical technique which the collecting device is placed into a solution and mixed and removed from the solution is defined as Method 1. The technique used in the study was defined as Method 2. The cervical smear screening test results obtained by two different methods in two consecutive time periods were analyzed. The two methods were compared using chi-square test in terms of smear inadequacy.

Results: A total of 2129 test results, including 1129 smears in Method 1 and 1000 smears in Method 2 were examined. The mean ages of the patients tested in both methods were similar (36 ± 6.1 and 37 ± 6.7). Abnormal test result rate was similar for Method 1 and Method 2 (5.8% vs 4.9%, respectively). The inadequate sample rate was higher in Method 1 than Method 2  (8.3% vs 2.1%, respectively).

Conclusions: The study showed that leaving the smear brush in the solution is a better way to reduce the inadequacy sample rates. This result may guide clinicians about smear techniques.

Get Citation

Keywords

cervical smear; inadequacy rates; liquid-based cytology; thin prep

About this article
Title

The comparison of two methods in cervical smear screening — which method is better for smear adequacy rates?

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 92, No 5 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

335-338

Published online

2021-03-08

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2020.0185

Pubmed

33751505

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2021;92(5):335-338.

Keywords

cervical smear
inadequacy rates
liquid-based cytology
thin prep

Authors

Işık Kaban
Besim Haluk Bacanakgil
Sevim Koca

References (16)
  1. Torre LA, Islami F, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer in Women: Burden and Trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017; 26(4): 444–457.
  2. Masenya M. Liquid based cytology. Obstetrics and Gynaecology Forum. 2011; 21(3).
  3. WHO-CancerReport-2020-Global Profile. 2020.
  4. McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I, et al. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial. Acta Cytol. 1998; 42(1): 25–32.
  5. Karabacak T, Aydın Ö, Düşmez D, et al. Limitation, inadequacy rates and reasons in cervicovaginal smears (2832 cases). Turkish J Pathol. 2001; 18(3): 22–25.
  6. Daglı AF, Ozercan MR. Servikal Smear Tarama Programımızda Sınırlılık/Yetersizlik Oranları ve Nedenleri (1322 Olgu). Fırat Med J. 2006; 11(3): 166–169.
  7. Celik C, Gezginç K, Toy H, et al. A comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008; 100(2): 163–166.
  8. Jeong H, Hong SR, Chae SW, et al. Comparison of Unsatisfactory Samples from Conventional Smear versus Liquid-Based Cytology in Uterine Cervical Cancer Screening Test. J Pathol Transl Med. 2017; 51(3): 314–319.
  9. Singh VB, Gupta N, Nijhawan R, 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.
  10. Guidos B, Selvaggi S. Use of the Thin Prep� Pap Test? in clinical practice. Diagnostic Cytopathology. 1999; 20(2): 70–73, doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0339(199902)20:2<70::aid-dc5>3.0.co;2-e.
  11. Rozemeijer K, Penning C, Siebers AG, et al. Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates. Cancer Causes Control. 2016; 27(1): 15–25.
  12. http://www.thinprep.com/hcp/specimen_collection/brush_spatula.html (25.04.2012).
  13. Martin-Hirsch P, Jarvis G, Kitchener H, et al. Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2): CD001036.
  14. Marchand L, Mundt M, Klein G, et al. Optimal collection technique and devices for a quality pap smear. WMJ. 2005; 104(6): 51–55.
  15. Schnippel K, Michelow P, Chibwesha CJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of using the Cervex-Brush (broom) compared to the elongated spatula for collection of conventional cervical cytology samples within a high-burden HIV setting: a model-based analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015; 15: 499.
  16. Wilbur DC, Nayar R, Nayar R, et al. The Pap Test and Bethesda 2014: "The reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." (after a quotation from Mark Twain). J Am Soc Cytopathol. 2015; 4(3): 170–180.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl