Comparison of conventional and liquid-based cytology: do the diagnostic benefits outweigh the financial aspect?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0002-6197-7654en_US
dc.authorid0000-0002-4627-8628en_US
dc.authorid0000-0002-3166-9052en_US
dc.contributor.authorIlter, Erdin
dc.contributor.authorMidi, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorHaliloglu, Berna
dc.contributor.authorCelik, Alrgen
dc.contributor.authorYener, Arzu Nee
dc.contributor.authorUlu, Ipek
dc.contributor.authorBozkurt, Hayriye Serpil
dc.contributor.authorOzekici, Umit
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-12T21:56:38Z
dc.date.available2024-07-12T21:56:38Z
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.departmentMaltepe Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim: We aimed to compare the efficiency of conventional cytology (CC) and new liquid-based cytology (LBC) techniques in the assessment and the accuracy of Pap smears reported as abnormal by histological examinations. Materials and methods: A total of 3488 women who were undergoing routine cervical screening (1308 CC and 2180 LBC) were included in the initial screening. The results were assessed as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Satisfactory results were subdivided as negative, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), atypical squamous cells for which high-grade lesions could not be excluded (ASC-H), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL), and cancer. Results: These data show that the rate of unsatisfactory results for the LBC technique (0.05%) was lower than for the CC group (0.5%). Except for ASCUS and cancer cytology, all other atypical cytology results were diagnosed more frequently with CC than with LBC. The rates of detected ASC-H and HGSIL were higher with CC than LBC, and the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion: LBC has higher satisfaction rates than CC. LBC also detected more true-abnormal cases when compared with CC. The residual specimens from the LBC technique can be used to detect human papillomavirus DNA through immunocytochemistry, if needed. However, the benefits of LBC do not seem to justify the cost. It seems that CC should be the first choice for developing countries with lower incomes.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3906/sag-1102-1384
dc.identifier.endpage1206en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-0144
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84871248154en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1200en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.3906/sag-1102-1384
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12415/8573
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000312424300008en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTUBITAK SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL TURKEYen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTURKISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCESen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.snmzKY03699
dc.subjectPapanicolaou smearen_US
dc.subjectliquid-based cytologyen_US
dc.subjectcervical cytologyen_US
dc.subjectepithelial abnormalitiesen_US
dc.titleComparison of conventional and liquid-based cytology: do the diagnostic benefits outweigh the financial aspect?en_US
dc.typeArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu