...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Nepal Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology >Cervical cancer screening by conventional Pap smear versus liquid based cytology
【24h】

Cervical cancer screening by conventional Pap smear versus liquid based cytology

机译：宫颈癌筛选常规PAP涂片与液体细胞学

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Aims: To evaluate Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) diagnostic performance compared with Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) for cervical cancer screening and to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the two cytology methods with gold standard cervical biopsy. Methods: This is a hospital based cross-sectional study conducted from April 2017 to April 2018 in 110 sample randomly selected at gynecology OPD in Paropakar Maternity and Women’s Hospital. Paired samples (CPS and LBC) were taken from the same patient. Abnormal epithelial lesion detected in LBC and CPS was sent for biopsy. Bethedsa reporting system was followed and data analyzed in terms of diagnostic accuracy. Results: LBC vs CPS for satisfactory report was 96.4% vs 91.8% while unsatisfactory was 3.6% vs 1.8% (p=0.02). The detection of premalignant lesions was ASCUS 2.7%, HSIL 4.5%, ASCUS-H 1.8% and LSIL 0.9% by LBC while by CPS- ASC-US 0.9%, HSIL 3.6%, LSIL 1.8% and ASC-H 0.9% were detected. The sensitivity and specificity of LBC vs CPS was 100% vs 88% and 81.8% vs 99% respectively. The positive predictive and negative predictive value of LBC vs CPS was 81.8% vs 88% and 100% vs 99% respectively. Conclusions: Cell pick-up was satisfactory in both LBC and CPS. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of CPS is similar whereas the positive predictive value of LBC is less than its sensitivity. Cervical cancer screening with CPS is effective alternative over LBC by its cost and level of accuracy.
机译：目的：与宫颈癌筛查的常规PAP涂片（CPS）相比，评估基于液体的细胞学（LBC）诊断性能，并比较两种细胞学方法与金标准宫颈活检的敏感性和特异性。方法：这是一项基于医院的横断面研究，从2017年4月至2018年4月在普通科科妇女医院随机选择的110种样品中进行的110项样本。配对样品（CPS和LBC）取自同一患者。将在LBC和CPS中检测到的异常上皮病变进行活组织检查。贝塞德萨报告系统被遵循并在诊断准确性方面进行分析。结果：LBC VS CPS令人满意的报告为96.4％，而不令人满意为3.6％VS 1.8％（P = 0.02）。预活性病变的检测是Ascus 2.7％，HSIL 4.5％，丙烯-H 1.8％和LSIL 0.9％，通过CPS-ASC-US 0.9％，HSIL 3.6％，LSIL 1.8％和ASC-H 0.9％检测。 LBC与CPS的敏感性和特异性分别为100％与88％和81.8％vs 99％。 LBC与CPS的阳性预测性和阴性预测值分别为81.8％，分别为88％和100％vs 99％。结论：在LBC和CPS中，细胞拾取令人满意。 CPS的敏感性和阳性预测值类似，而LBC的阳性预测值小于其敏感性。用CPS筛选CPS的宫颈癌通过其成本和精度水平是有效的替代方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号