Abstract
Introduction
Cytology has always been the cornerstone of the diagnosis of
cervical cancer and cervical precancerous lesion. Unfortunately the sensitivity of conventional cytology in the diagnosis of cervical precancerous lesion is approximately 70-80% and liquid based cytology in many studies has shown better sensitivity in the diagnosis of cervical precancerous lesion.
Latvia is one of the countries who is using Leishman based
staining for cervical cytological smear. So far studies that
compare fluid cytology with conventional cytology after the
Leishman method have not been performed.
Methods
Study enrolled 100 women; they were divided in 2 groups.
Group A with 50 participants were enrolled in Riga East
University Clinical Hospital Colposcopy clinic with previously
detected cytological abnormalities and 50 women who attended 2 outpatient clinics in Riga for regular check-up, cytological testing by conventional and liquid cytology methods and colposcopic examination of uterine cervix were
performed. Reading of the cytological tests was performed in
the two independent laboratories.
Results
Sensitivity and specificity in conventional cytology for LSIL
was 36% and 85% in comparison for liquid based cytology
sensitivity was 30% and specificity was 92%. Sensitivity and
specificity in conventional cytology for HSIL was 33% and
94% in comparison for liquid based cytology sensitivity was
67% and specificity was 94%.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity in conventional Leishman's
cytology and liquid based cytology for LSIL are similar.
Although in this study liquid cytology shows better sensitivity
for HSIL, the number of patients included in the study is
small and further research is needed.
Cytology has always been the cornerstone of the diagnosis of
cervical cancer and cervical precancerous lesion. Unfortunately the sensitivity of conventional cytology in the diagnosis of cervical precancerous lesion is approximately 70-80% and liquid based cytology in many studies has shown better sensitivity in the diagnosis of cervical precancerous lesion.
Latvia is one of the countries who is using Leishman based
staining for cervical cytological smear. So far studies that
compare fluid cytology with conventional cytology after the
Leishman method have not been performed.
Methods
Study enrolled 100 women; they were divided in 2 groups.
Group A with 50 participants were enrolled in Riga East
University Clinical Hospital Colposcopy clinic with previously
detected cytological abnormalities and 50 women who attended 2 outpatient clinics in Riga for regular check-up, cytological testing by conventional and liquid cytology methods and colposcopic examination of uterine cervix were
performed. Reading of the cytological tests was performed in
the two independent laboratories.
Results
Sensitivity and specificity in conventional cytology for LSIL
was 36% and 85% in comparison for liquid based cytology
sensitivity was 30% and specificity was 92%. Sensitivity and
specificity in conventional cytology for HSIL was 33% and
94% in comparison for liquid based cytology sensitivity was
67% and specificity was 94%.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity in conventional Leishman's
cytology and liquid based cytology for LSIL are similar.
Although in this study liquid cytology shows better sensitivity
for HSIL, the number of patients included in the study is
small and further research is needed.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages | P02 |
Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Event | 2nd International Society for Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ISIDOG) Congress - Vienna, Austria Duration: 26 Oct 2017 → 29 Oct 2017 Conference number: 2 https://www.events.mondial.at/ei/2017/Downloads/ESIDOG_Folder_Programm_2017_02.pdf |
Congress
Congress | 2nd International Society for Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ISIDOG) Congress |
---|---|
Abbreviated title | ISIDOG 2017 |
Country/Territory | Austria |
City | Vienna |
Period | 26/10/17 → 29/10/17 |
Internet address |
Field of Science*
- 3.1 Basic medicine
- 3.2 Clinical medicine
Publication Type*
- 3.4. Other publications in conference proceedings (including local)