A comparative analysis of conventional and SurePath liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A study of 140 cases

• Main Authors: Jyotsna Sharma, Pampa Ch Toi, Neelaiah Siddaraju, Malliga Sundareshan, Syed Habeebullah
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2016-01-01
• Series: Journal of Cytology
• Subjects: Conventional Pap smear (CPS); morphology; liquid-based cytology (LBC)
• Online Access: http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2016;volume=33;issue=2;spage=80;epage=84;aulast=Sharma

Background: The role of Papanicolaou (Pap) test in cervical cancer screening need not be overemphasized. While most Western countries have adopted the liquid-based cytology (LBC), which is considered superior, many developing countries are still using the conventional Pap smear (CPS) technique. Objective: To compare the staining and cytomorphological features on conventional versus liquid-based cervicovaginal smears. Materials and Methods: One hundred and forty cervicovaginal smears prepared by the standard conventional and LBC techniques were interpreted as per the Bethesda system of reporting cervicovaginal smears. Twelve parameters were studied, compared, and statistically analyzed. A P value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: 129/140 (92%) of CPSs and 130/140 (93%) LBC smears were satisfactory. LBC had a significantly shorter screening time (2.0 ± 0.08 vs 4.0 ± 0.65) and better representative material than that of CPS (50% vs 42%). Neutrophils were significantly more in CPS than LBC (96% vs 92%) with a P value <0.05 while hemorrhagic background and red blood cells (RBCs) were more prominent in CPS. LBC showed significant artifactual changes in squamous epithelial cells. Epithelial abnormalities ranging from atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) to high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) were seen in 3% (4) and 2% (2) of CPSs and LBCs, respectively. Organisms were better picked up in CPS (99% in CPS vs 73% LBC) with a value of P = 0.0001. Conclusion: Although a shorter screening time and cleaner background are the major advantages of LBC, CPS is not inferior to LBC. Considering the high cost, rather than the advantages associated with LBC, we feel that CPS is a better option for developing countries.