Search

The 2001 Bethesda System is a uniform system of terminology for reporting results of pap smears. It is acknowledged by most cytopathologists worldwide as a standard for cervical cytology reports. In France, several national surveys have confirmed its current utilization. However, more specific analysis have shown that the Bethesda System may be routinely modified by individual laboratories or even individual cytopathologist working within the same department. The aim of this progress report was to emphasize the importance of fully understanding the Bethesda System and applying it in a rigorous and standardized way.

Many articles concerning conventional Pap smears, ThinPrep liquid-based cytology (LBC) and Hybrid-Capture II HPV test (HC II) have been published. This study, carried out by the French Society of Clinical Cytology, may be conspicuous for several reasons: it was financially independent; it compared the efficiency of the conventional Pap smear and LBC, of the conventional Pap smear and HC II, and included an economic study based on real costs; for all the women, a "gold standard" reference method, colposcopy, was available and biopsies were performed whenever a lesion was detected; The conventional Pap smear, the LBC (split-sample technique), the colposcopy, and the biopsies were done at the same time. This study included 2,585 women shared into two groups: a group A of a high-risk population, a group B of a screening population. The statistical analysis of the results showed that conventional Pap smears consistently had superior or equivalent sensitivity and specificity than LBC for the lesions at threshold CIN-I (Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia) or CIN-II or higher. It underlined the low specificity of the HC II. Finally, the LBC mean cost was never covered by the Social Security tariff.

The aim of this study was to determine the efficiency of the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Digene, Gaithersburg, MD) human papillomavirus (HPV) assay for the detection of cervical neoplasia. Of the 1,785 patients recruited, 462 (25.88%) were referred for colposcopy owing to previously detected cytologic abnormalities, and 1,323 (74.12%) were voluntary candidates for screening. For all patients, a Papanicolaou smear and a monolayer smear (ThinPrep, Cytyc, Boxborough, MA) were done. HPV DNA was detected on the residual liquid-based material. False-positive results were observed in 111 cases and comprised 34 cross-reactions (1.90%) and 77 false-positive cases (4.31%) owing to a contiguous strong chemiluminescence signal. Interestingly, all these samples had a relative light units value of 1 to 3 and were contiguous to a sample with a very high HPV DNA load. The final results showed that high-risk and low-risk HPV DNA were detected in 480 samples (26.89%) and 135 samples (7.56%), respectively. Although HC2 can be considered a reliable and sensitive test for HPV DNA detection, we do not advocate its use for large-scale screening for cervical neoplasia.

Objectives: To compare the sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver reliability of conventional cervical smear tests, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus testing for screening for cervical cancer., Design: Cross sectional study in which the three techniques were performed simultaneously with a reference standard (colposcopy and histology)., Setting: Public university and private practices in France, with complete independence from the suppliers., Participants: 828 women referred for colposcopy because of previously detected cytological abnormalities and 1757 women attending for routine smears., Main Outcome Measures: Clinical readings and optimised interpretation (two blind readings followed, if necessary, by consensus). Sensitivity, specificity, and weighted kappa computed for various thresholds of abnormalities., Results: Conventional cervical smear tests were more often satisfactory (91% v 87%) according to the Bethesda system, more reliable (weighted kappa 0.70 v 0.57), and had consistently better sensitivity and specificity than monolayer cytology. These findings applied to clinical readings and optimised interpretations, low and high grade lesions, and populations with low and high incidence of abnormalities. Human papillomavirus testing associated with monolayer cytology, whether systematic or for atypical cells of undetermined significance, performed no better than conventional smear tests., Conclusions: Monolayer cytology is less reliable and more likely to give false positive and false negative results than conventional cervical smear tests for screening for cervical cancer.

This paper is part of the cost-effectiveness study of cervical cancer screening conducted by the French Society of Clinical Cytology (SFCC). It describes the evaluation of costs of conventional smear tests, thin-layer smear tests (ThinPrep 2000 system), and viral typing by the HCS test. For 100,000 examinations per year, the average cost of a conventional smear test is 11.53 dollars in a private anatomo-pathology clinic. The cost of the thin-layer test for the same number of examinations and in the same type of clinic is 13.93 dollars. For 20,000 annual tests, the average cost of human papillomavirus (HPV) is 23.43 dollars in the public sector and 23.48 dollars in the private one. The higher price of the thin-layer method is only justifiable if this screening technique outperforms the conventional method. Furthermore, the high cost of the HPV test means that its integration into a population-based screening program must be carefully defined., (Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

The French Society of Clinical Cytology is conducting a study to compare the cost-effectiveness of monolayers and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing with that of conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smears for cervical cancer screening. The protocol of this study is presented. It includes 3,000 women who will be evaluated by the three methods (conventional Pap smears, or monolayers with or without HPV testing) and by the reference method: colposcopy followed, in cases with abnormalities, by cervical biopsy. Efficacy or performance of the methods will be compared on the basis of sensitivity. Cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness modeling will be based on the costs associated with methods themselves and also the costs of "false positives." This will require specific collection of data concerning the costs of the three methods, as these costs have not previously been accurately documented. Patient recruiting and data collection started in September 1999 and will be complete in June 2000. The first results are expected to be available in spring 2001., (Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Diagnostic schema may be developed on a national or global level, but may be varied depending on the local conditions. In this article, the differences between French and North American gynecologic cytology are discussed. This article emphasizes the training, diagnostic, technologic, and regulatory differences that exist in France. By studying such differences, local practices can learn potential benefits and why their currently used systems may be optimal.

Issues: Cell Preparation Methods Standardized fixation and optimal staining Sampling of cervix, sampling error, homogenization of sample, subsampling Assessment of liquid-based preparations: efficacy and economic impact Training and transitional procedures before full implementation of new technologies Criteria for Sample Adequacy Clinician responsibility for collecting and providing representative sample to laboratory Collection instruments, number of slides Cellular content of samples: evidence of transformation zone (TZ) sampling, number of squamous cells present, obscuring factors Screening issues CONSENSUS POSITION The conventional cervical smear remains the standard method of cervical cancer screening but has limitations in individual test sensitivity and specificity. Sample takers should: (1) receive appropriate training in sample collection, (2) be held responsible for providing the laboratory with appropriate samples, and (3) have their performance monitored. The instruments used for sampling should collect cells from both the ectocervix and endocervix; optimally, TZ sampling, represented by the presence of endocervical or squamous metaplastic cells, should be identifiable in samples other than atrophic specimens. The adequacy of a specimen (as judged microscopically) does not guarantee that it is representative of the cervix. Each cytology report should include a comment on cellular content/adequacy of the specimen. Liquid-based preparations may overcome many of the inherent problems with the conventional cervical smear., Ongoing Issues: We need further data on the cost-effectiveness of making two slides from cervical specimens and/or using two samplers rather than a single one. Do we have enough information to make recommendations as to the appropriate type of sampler to be used in particular situations, such as routine screening? What is the best method of screening for/detecting endocervical glandular neoplasia? How are such terms as unsatisfactory and inadequate defined in cervical cytology classifications other than the Bethesda System? What number and types of epithelial cells should be present (visualized) in a cervical smear or liquid-based preparation for it to be considered adequate? Do we need to have evidence of TZ sampling in specimens taken during the follow-up period after treatment of squamous intraepithelial lesion or after detection of endocervical glandular neoplasia? What criteria for obscuring factors, such as blood and inflammation, should be used in assessing adequacy? Cost-benefit analyses of utilizing liquid-based preparations are needed. Should we inform women about the technical details of the test methods available or chosen by the laboratory? Are women in a position to decide which method is the most appropriate to assess their cervical scrape sample? We need to obtain more information about the properties of proprietary liquid fixative/transport media with respect to inactivation of viral pathogens, tuberculosis and other bacterial pathogens and suitability for immunobiologic and molecular tests, etc. We need to obtain more information on the use of stoichiometric stains and the limitations of Papanicolaou stain for image analysis systems. The use of liquid-based preparations for nongynecologic cytopathology and ancillary tests must be considered, including criteria for adequacy. We need to obtain more information on the time required for and best methods of training experienced cytotechnologists to become competent at assessing liquid-based cervical preparations.