Good old pap smear towers over the latest LBC for cervical screening: a study in a rural teaching institute of Tamil Nadu, India
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among Indian women and the fourth most frequent cancer in women across the globe. Though effective screening programmes are available, its role in effective prevention in a developing country like ours still remains an unanswered question and the probable reason behind this could be the difficulty in adopting liquid-based cytology (LBC) as the main screening program ahead of conventional pap smear (CPS).
Aims and Objectives: This study was performed with an objective to analyse and interpret the samples by both CPS and LBC and to compare the both so as to find out the possibility of implementing LBC in a rural teaching institute of Tamilnadu like ours.
Materials and methods: This was a prospective observational study which includes sample of 100 women who have attended the gynaecological outpatient department (OPD) of Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda, Variyar Medical College and Hospitals, Salem, Tamil Nadu. The slides were interpreted by two independent cytopathologists based on The Bethesda System and the results were analysed statistically.
Results: The youngest patient was 19 years and the oldest was 68 years old. The most common age group in the study is 4th decade. The commonest clinical presentation was discharge per vaginum (PV). Screening time was less with LBC which also showed cleaner background compared to CPS. Other parameters like organisms and epithelial cell abnormalities were detected in both CPS and LBC.
Conclusion: Even though LBC was few steps above CPS while considering the smear background and time taken to screen the slides, CPS still remains the better among the two in our setup taking into consideration the cost efficacy it provides which is the main factor for the population in our rural setup.
Downloads
References
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Can Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359-E386. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210.
Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Murray CJ, Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011;378(9801):1461-1484. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61351-2. Epub 2011 Sep 14.
World Health Organization, Cancer, Cervical cancer. Available from https://www.who.int/cancer/cervical-cancer
Babes A. Diagnostic du cancer du col utérin par les frottis. Presse Medicale 1928;36:451-454.
Classes in oncology: George Nicholas Papanicolaou's new cancer diagnosis presented at the Third Race Betterment Conference, Battle Creek, Michigan, January 2-6, 1928, and published in the Proceedings of the Conference. CA Cancer J Clin. 1973;23(3):174-179. doi: https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.23.3.174
Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. 1941. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121(3):211-224.
Papanicolaou GN. Atlas of exfoliative cytology. Atlas of exfoliative Cytol. 1954.
McSweeney DJ, McKay DG. Uterine cancer: its early detection by simple screening methods. N Engl J Med 1948;238(25):867-870.
Janicek MF, Averette HE. Cervical cancer: prevention, diagnosis, and therapeutics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;51(2):92-114. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.51.2.92
Sherwani RK, Khan T, Akhtar K, Zeba A, Siddiqui FA, Rahman K, Afsan N. Conventional Pap smear and liquid based cytology for cervical cancer screening-A comparative study. J Cytol. 2007;24(4):167-172.
Nandini NM, Nandish SM, Pallavi P, Akshatha SK, Chandrashekhar AP, Anjali S. Manual liquid-based cytology in primary screening for cervical cancer--a cost effective preposition for scarce resource settings. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(8):3645-3651. doi: https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.8.3645.
Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of Thin Prep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90(1):137-144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00176-8.
Zhu J, Norman I, Elfgren K, Gaberi V, Hagmar B, Hjerpe A, A comparison of liquid-based cytology and Pap smear as a screening method for cervical cancer. Oncol Rep. 2007;18(1):157-160. doi: https://doi.org/10.3892/or.18.1.157
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(16):1757-1764. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1569.
Confortini M, Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Carozzi FM, Cecchini S, Cipparrone I, et al. Conventional pap smear and liquid-based cervical cytology smear: comparison from the same patient. Tumori. 2002;88(4):288-290.
Mallath MK, Taylor DG, Badwe RA, Rath GK, Shanta V, Pramesh CS, et al. The growing burden of cancer in India: epidemiology and social context. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(6):e205-e212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70115-9. Epub 2014 Apr 11.
Lazcano-Ponce E, Alonso P, Ruiz-Moreno JA, Hernández-Avila M. Recommendations for cervical cancer screening programs in developing countries: The need for equity and technological development. salud pública de méxico. 2003;45(3):449-462.
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. 2001;185(2):308-317. doi: https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.116736.
Bibbo M, Wilbur DC, editors. Comprehensive cytopathology. 3rd ed. China: Elsevier saunders; 2008.
Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(10):954-962. Epub 2001 Nov 1.
Murthy NS, Chaudhry K, Saxena S. Trends in cervical cancer incidence--Indian scenario. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2005;14(6):513-518.
Joshi S, Sankaranarayanan R. Opportunities for cervical cancer prevention in India. J Kris Inst Med Sci Universi 4(1):8-17.
Eddy DM. Secondary prevention of cancer: an overview. Bull World Health Organ. 1986;64(3):421-429.
Pankaj S, Nazneen S, Kumari S, Kumari A, Kumari A, Kumari J, 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: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijc.IJC_352_17.
Deshou H, Changhua W, Qinyan L, Wei L, Wen F. Clinical utility of Liqui-PREP™ cytology system for primary cervical cancer screening in a large urban hospital setting in China. J Cytol/Indian Acad Cytol. 2009;26(1):20-25.
Kituncharoen S, Tantbirojn P, Niruthisard S. Comparison of unsatisfactory rates and detection of abnormal cervical cytology between conventional Papanicolaou smear and liquid-based cytology (Sure Path (R)). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(16):8491-8494. doi: https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.18.8491.
Garg V, Thakral RK, Sharma VK, Agarwal AK, Gupta K, Vedi A. Conventional pap (papanicoloau) smear cytology in primary screening of cervical lesions & its comparison with manual liquid-based cytology. Indian J Pathol Oncol. 2016;3(3):485-490. doi: https://doi.org/10.5958/2394-6792.2016.00090.9.
Singh VB, Gupta N, Nijhawan R, Srinivasan R, Suri V, Rajwanshi A. 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: https://doi.org/10.4103/0377-4929.151157.
Ranjana H, Sadhna S. Comparison of conventional pap smear versus liquid based cytology in a diagnostic centre of central Madhya Pradesh. Indian J Pathol Oncol. 2016;3(1):42-47. doi:https://doi.org/10.5958/2394-6792.2016.00010.7.
Sharma J, Toi PCh, Siddaraju N, Sundareshan M, Habeebullah S. A comparative analysis of conventional and SurePath liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A study of 140 cases. J Cytol. 2016;33(2):80-84. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9371.182525.
Gupta N, Bhar VS, Rajwanshi A, Suri V. Unsatisfactory rate in liquid-based cervical samples as compared to conventional smears: A study from tertiary care hospital. Cyto J. 2016;13:14. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.183831. eCollection 2016.
Jeong H, Hong SR, Chae SW, Jin SY, Yoon HK, Lee J. 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2017.03.17. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
Nishio H, Iwata T, Nomura H, Morisada T, Takeshima N, Takano H et al. Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for detection of uterine cervical lesions: a prospective observational study. Jap J Clin Oncol. 2018;48(6):522-528. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyy050.
Costa MO, Heráclio SA, Coelho AV, Acioly VL, Souza PR, Correia MT. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou cytology samples with liquid-based cervical cytology samples from women in Pernambuco, Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2015;48(9):831-838. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20154252.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
