Comparison of Self-collected Cervical Cell by Baby's Toothbrush with Conventional Pap Smears
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To compare between self-collected cervical cell by baby's tooth brush and conventional Pap smear.
Design: Prospective diagnostic test.
Setting: Out-patient unit, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Surin Hospital.
Subjects: 220 women who visited colposcopic clinics at Surin hospital from 8 January 2007 to 25 February 2008.
Result: The proportion of satisfactory presence endocervical gland in baby's tooth brush groups was significantly lower than Pap smear groups (31.37% and 94.5%, p < 0.01). The sensitivity in baby's tooth brush groups was significantly lower than Pap smear groups (26.3% and 33%, p < 0.01) and the false negative was significantly higher than Pap smear groups (73.7% and 66.9%, p < 0.01). But the specificity in baby's tooth brush groups was significantly higher than Pap smear groups (96.5% and 80.4%, p < 0.01) and positive predictive value was significantly higher than Pap smear groups (92.1% and 72.1%, p < 0.01).
Conclusion: Self-collected cervical cell by baby's tooth brush is similar to conventional Pap smear by accuracy. Furthermore, since the baby's tooth brush is more available and reusable, increasing in frequency of the test may improve the accuracy of diagnosis.
Key words: Pap smear, baby's tooth brush, comparison
Article Details
References
2. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141;680-9.
3. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubishi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Papanicolaou smears : a meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308-17.
4. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System : terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9.
5. Garcia F, Barker B, Santos C, Brown EM, Nuno T Giuliano A, et al. Cross- sectional study of patient and physician- collected cervical cytology and human papillomavirus. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:266-72.
6. Rcowchopisakul K, Linasmita V, Srivannaboon S, Suthutvoravut S. Cytologic evaluation of smears obtained by self-collection vaginal tampon. J Med Assoc Thai 1993;76:260-3.
7. Mitchell H, Medley G. Difference between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology. 1995;6:368-75.
8. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet. 1991; 337:265-67
9. Bos AB, Vanballegooijen M, Elskemvan den Akkervan Marie M, et al. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the year after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:851-55.
10. Young W. Comparison of transformation zone sampling rates-apotentially useful indicator of smear talker performance. Cytopathology. 2001;11:116-23.
11. Anderson GH, Krakaver K. The irrigation smear - a new cytodiagnostic technique for the detection of cancer of the uterine cervix. Can Med Assoc J. 1967:96:268-72.
12. Richart RM, Vaillant HW. Influence of cell collection techniques upon cytological diagnosis. Cancer 1965;18:1474-8.
13. Srivannaboon S, Phijaisanit P. Detection of early cervical cancer by the irrigation smear technique. J Med Assoc Thai 1982;65:361-5.
14. Bernstein A, Vitner S, Webber JM. Evaluation of new tampon device for cytologic auto collection and mass screening of cervical cancer and its precursors. Am J obstet Gynecol 1985;151:351-5.
15. Budge M, Halford J, Haran M, Mein J, Wright G. Comparison of a self - administered tampon Thin Prep test with conventional Pap smears for cervical cytology. Aust NZJ Obstet Gynaecol 2005;45:215-9.
16. Arata T, Sekiba K, Kato K. Appraisal of self-collected cervical specimens in cytologic screening of uterine cancer. Acta Cytol 1978;22:150-2.
17. Noguchi M, Nakanishi M, Kato K. Appraisal of a newly developed self- collection device for obtaining cervical specimens. Acta Cylol 1982;26:635-5.
18. Pengsaa P, Sriamporn S, Kritpetcharat O, Kamsa - Ard S, Suwanrungruang K, Noda S, et al. A comparison of cytology with Pap smears taken by a gynecologist and with a self-sampling device. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2003;4:99-102.
19. Given FT Jr, Jones HW 3 rd. Self- administered cervical cancer screening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1992;35:3-12.
