Shared conventional vs liquid- based cytology techniques

Comparación entre las técnicas de citología compartida: convencional vs. base líquida

Objective: to describe cervix cytology techniques, that is, the conventional method vs liquid- based preparations, taken during social projection campaigns, in terms of sample quality and morphologic findings, in sexually active women of reproductive age. Methods: a cross-sectional descriptive study in 29 women in which cytology was performed, half of them by the conventional method (smear on a slide) and the other half by a liquid-based preparation. The shared sample method was used (keeping the spatula and cytology brush in LucBase solution). Women who were pregnant, menstruating or had received chemotherapy or radiotherapy were excluded. Results: The variable on quality of the sample showed that of the 29 conventional samples, 16 had endocervical or transformation zone material, while only one on liquid- based preparation had endocervix. As to the reading records, out of 29 conventional samples, 3 were interpreted as ASCUS; out of 14 liquid-based, 12 were inadequate and two were rejected. A 7 minute difference in performing the liquid-based technique was found compared to the conventional technique. Conclusions: an increased cellularity and endocervix pre­ sence was found in the conventional technique when comparing the shared sample for the two techniques. Liquid-based preparations showed a dirty background consisting of inftammation, mucus and cellular detritus, not complying with one of the features of technique improvement. When performing the conventional smear first, the material preserved for the liquid- based technique is reduced or fade in the shared sample. Our new studies are focused on the use of new technologies for liquid- based preparations such as ThinPrep and SurePath.

1. Albujar P. Reseña histórica de la citología. Ginecol. Obstetr.[serie en Internet] 2001 abr [citado 30 Sep 201 I]; 47(2):(aprox. 3 p.]. Disponible en: http://sisbib. unrns.edu.pe/bvrevistas/ginecologia/vol_47n2/resena_histo.htm.
2. Ricci P, Perucca E, Koljanin J, Baeriswyl E. Citología de base liquida: revisión de la historia y los estudios al respecto. Rev Chil obsté! ginecol. [serie en In-temet] 2004 [citado 30 Sep 2011]; 69 (3): ):[aprox. 7 p.]. Disponible en: http:// www.scielo.cl/pdf/rchog/v69n3/art14.pdf
3. Wright PK. Comparison of SurePath and ThinPred liquid-based cervical cytolo­ gy using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators. Cytopatbology. 20!0; 21:374-78.
4. Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A, Cas F, Ayivi J, Huynh B. Accuracy of Thin­ Layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Acta Cytol. 2001 Jul-Aug;45(4): 519-24.
5. Kenyon S, Sweeney BJ, Happel J, Marchilli GE, Weinstein B, Schneider D. Comparasion of 8D Surepatb and ThinPred pap systems in the processing of mucus rich specimens. Cancer Cytopathol. 201O Oct 25;118(5):244-9.
6. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martín-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(1): 167-77.
7. Taoka H, Yarnamoto Y, Sakurai N, Fukuda M, Asakawa Y, Kurasaki A. Com­ parasion of convencional and liquid-based cytology, and human papillomavirus testing using SurePath preparation in Japan. Hum Cell. 2010 Nov;23(4):126-33
8. Ricci P. Perucca E. Koljnin J. Baeriswyl E Experiencia y manejo del purpura trombocitopenico idiopatico durante el embarazo. Rev. Chil. Obstet Ginecol. 2003;68(4):293-99.
9. Rinas AC, Mittman BW Jr, Le LV, Hartrnann K, Cayless J, Singh HK. Split - Sample Analysis of Discarded Cells from Liquid - Based Pap Smear Sarnpling Devices. Acta Cytol. 2006 Jan-Feb;50(1):55-62.