Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 1/2016

Open Access 01-01-2016 | Original paper

Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates

Authors: Kirsten Rozemeijer, Corine Penning, Albert G. Siebers, Steffie K. Naber, Suzette M. Matthijsse, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Folkert J. van Kemenade, Inge M. C. M. de Kok

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Within the last decade, SurePath and ThinPrep [both liquid-based cytology (LBC) tests] have replaced conventional cytology (CC) as primary test method in cervical cancer screening programs of multiple countries. The aim of our study was to examine the effect in the Dutch screening program.

Methods

All primary smears taken within this program from 2000 to 2011 were analyzed using the nationwide registry of histo- and cytopathology (PALGA) with a follow-up until March 2013. The percentage of smears classified as borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) and >BMD as well as CIN and cervical cancer detection rates were compared between SurePath and ThinPrep versus CC by logistic regression analyses (adjusted for age, screen region, socioeconomic status, and calendar time).

Results

We included 3,118,685 CC, 1,313,731 SurePath, and 1,584,587 ThinPrep smears. Using SurePath resulted in an increased rate of primary smears classified as >BMD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.16)]. CIN I and II+ detection rates increased by 14 % [OR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.08–1.20)] and 8 % [OR = 1.08 (95% CI 1.05–1.12)]. Cervical cancer detection rates were unaffected. Implementing ThinPrep did not result in major alterations of the cytological classification of smears, and it did not affect CIN detection rates. While not significant, cervical cancer detection rates were lower [OR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.75–1.01)].

Conclusions

The impact of replacing CC by LBC as primary test method depends on the type of LBC test used. Only the use of SurePath was associated with increased CIN II+ detection, although it simultaneously increased the detection of CIN I.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, Meijer CJ, Poljak M, Ogilvie G, Koliopoulos G, Naucler P, Sankaranarayanan R, Peto J (2012) Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine 30(Suppl 5):F88–F99CrossRefPubMed
2.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, Bulten J, Arbyn M (2009) Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 302:1757–1764CrossRefPubMed
3.
Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, Saville AM (2006) Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 367:122–132CrossRefPubMed
4.
Davey E, d’Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, Farnsworth A (2007) Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 335:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Taylor S, Kuhn L, Dupree W, Denny L, De Souza M, Wright TC Jr (2006) Direct comparison of liquid-based and conventional cytology in a South African screening trial. Int J Cancer 118:957–962CrossRefPubMed
6.
Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG (2003) Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer 99:263–271CrossRefPubMed
7.
Colgan TJ, McLachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seidenfeld AM, Mai VM (2004) Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the ontario screening program. Cancer 102:362–367CrossRefPubMed
8.
Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D (2004) Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 102:269–279CrossRefPubMed
9.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J (2008) Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 112:1327–1334CrossRefPubMed
10.
Beerman H, van Dorst EB, Kuenen-Boumeester V, Hogendoorn PC (2009) Superior performance of liquid-based versus conventional cytology in a population-based cervical cancer screening program. Gynecol Oncol 112:572–576CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC (1996) Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears. A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 40:1136–1142CrossRefPubMed
12.
Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW (2003) Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 99:331–335CrossRefPubMed
13.
Sass MA (2004) Use of a liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital. Impact on cytology performance and productivity. Acta Cytol 48:17–22CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cox JT (2009) History of the use of HPV testing in cervical screening and in the management of abnormal cervical screening results. J Clin Virol 45(Suppl 1):S3–S12CrossRefPubMed
15.
Albrow R, Kitchener H, Gupta N, Desai M (2012) Cervical screening in England: the past, present, and future. Cancer Cytopathol 120:87–96CrossRefPubMed
16.
Rask J, Lynge E, Franzmann M, Hansen B, Hjortebjerg A, Rygaard C, Schledermann D, Wahlin A, Rebolj M (2014) Impact of technology on cytology outcome in cervical cancer screening of young and older women. Int J Cancer 134:2168–2179CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J (2008) Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 111:167–177CrossRefPubMed
19.
Whitlock EP, Vesco KK, Eder M, Lin JS, Senger CA, Burda BU (2011) Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 155(687–97):W214–W215
20.
Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, Le Gales C, Cartier I, Molinie V, Labbe S, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Vielh P (2003) French society of clinical cytology study G. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 326:733CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Hussein T, Desai M, Tomlinson A, Kitchener HC (2005) The comparative diagnostic accuracy of conventional and liquid-based cytology in a colposcopic setting. BJOG 112:1542–1546CrossRefPubMed
22.
Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, DallaPalma P, Naldoni C, Ghiringhello B, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, Parisio F, Pojer A, Schiboni ML, Sintoni C, Zorzi M, Segnan N, Confortini M (2007) Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 335:28CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Sykes PH, Harker DY, Miller A, Whitehead M, Neal H, Wells JE, Peddie D (2008) A randomised comparison of SurePath liquid-based cytology and conventional smear cytology in a colposcopy clinic setting. BJOG 115:1375–1381CrossRefPubMed
24.
Casparie M, Tiebosch AT, Burger G, Blauwgeers H, van de Pol A, van Krieken JH, Meijer GA (2007) Pathology databanking and biobanking in The Netherlands, a central role for PALGA, the nationwide histopathology and cytopathology data network and archive. Cell Oncol 29:19–24PubMed
25.
Knol FA (1998) Van hoog naar laag; van laag naar hoog: de sociaal-ruimtelijke ontwikkeling van wijken tussen 1971–1995. Social Cultureel Planbureau, Zeeland (in Dutch)
26.
Zhao FH, Hu SY, Bian JJ, Liu B, Peck RB, Bao YP, Pan QJ, Frappart L, Sellors J, Qiao YL (2011) Comparison of ThinPrep and SurePath liquid-based cytology and subsequent human papillomavirus DNA testing in China. Cancer Cytopathol 119:387–394CrossRefPubMed
27.
Rozemeijer K, van Kemenade FJ, Penning C, Matthijsse SM, Naber SK, van Rosmalen J, van Ballegooijen M, de Kok IM (2015) Exploring the trend of increased cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detection rates in the Netherlands. J Med Screen 22(3):144–150CrossRefPubMed
28.
Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, Burda BU, Senger CA, Lutz K (2011) Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 155(698–705):W216
29.
Zhang J, Yu KF (1998) What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280:1690–1691CrossRefPubMed
30.
Umana A, Dunsmore H, Herbert A, Jokhan A, Kubba A (2013) Are significant numbers of abnormal cells lost on the discarded ThinPrep(R) broom when used for cervical cytology? Cytopathology 24:228–234CrossRefPubMed
31.
Bigras G, Rieder MA, Lambercy JM, Kunz B, Chatelain JP, Reymond O, Cornaz D (2003) Keeping collecting device in liquid medium is mandatory to ensure optimized liquid-based cervical cytologic sampling. J Low Genit Tract Dis 7:168–174CrossRefPubMed
32.
Benoy IH, Vanden Broeck D, Ruymbeke MJ, Sahebali S, Arbyn M, Bogers JJ, Temmerman M, Depuydt CE (2011) Prior knowledge of HPV status improves detection of CIN2+ by cytology screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205(6):569.e1–577.e1CrossRef
33.
Moriarty AT, Nayar R, Arnold T, Gearries L, Renshaw A, Thomas N, Souers R (2014) The Tahoe study: bias in the interpretation of Papanicolaou test results when human papillomavirus status is known. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(9):1182–1185CrossRefPubMed
34.
Cuzick J, Ahmad A, Costa M, Lyons D, Wright C, Ho L, Terry G, Austin J, Ashdown-Barr L, Cadman L, Szarewski AA (2013) Comparison of the performance of different HPV tests in ThinPrep vs SurePath. In: Paper presented at Eurogin, Florence, Italy
35.
Siebers AG, Arbyn M, Melchers WJ, van Kemenade FJ, Vedder JE, van der Linden H, van Ballegooijen M, Bekkers RL, Bulten J (2014) Effectiveness of two strategies to follow-up ASC-US and LSIL screening results in The Netherlands using repeat cytology with or without additional hrHPV testing: a retrospective cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 25:1141–1149CrossRefPubMed
36.
Palmer TJ, Nicoll SM, McKean ME, Park AJ, Bishop D, Baker L, Imrie JE (2013) Prospective parallel randomized trial of the MultiCyte ThinPrep((R)) imaging system: the Scottish experience. Cytopathology 24:235–245CrossRefPubMed
37.
Klug SJ, Neis KJ, Harlfinger W, Malter A, Konig J, Spieth S, Brinkmann-Smetanay F, Kommoss F, Weyer V, Ikenberg H (2013) A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid-based cytology and computer assistance. Int J Cancer 132:2849–2857CrossRefPubMed
38.
Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G, Gunn L, Desai M, Albrow R, Mather J, Rana DN, Cubie H, Moore C, Legood R, Gray A, Moss S (2011) Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 12:56–64CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates
Authors
Kirsten Rozemeijer
Corine Penning
Albert G. Siebers
Steffie K. Naber
Suzette M. Matthijsse
Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Folkert J. van Kemenade
Inge M. C. M. de Kok
Publication date
01-01-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-015-0678-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Cancer Causes & Control 1/2016 Go to the issue

Original paper

Bone mineral density and mammographic density in Mexican women

Original paper

Energy homeostasis genes and survival after breast cancer diagnosis: the Breast Cancer Health Disparities Study

Original paper

Vitamin D, PTH, and calcium and tumor aggressiveness in prostate cancer: a prospective nested case–control study

Original Paper

Family history of hematologic malignancies and risk of multiple myeloma: differences by race and clinical features

Letter to the editor

Therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia following radioactive iodine treatment for thyroid cancer

Original paper

Breast cancer recurrence in relation to antidepressant use
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits