Collection of the BD SurePath Pap Test with a broom device plus endocervical brush improves disease detection when compared to the broom device alone or the spatula plus endocervical brush combination

Comparison of the Cervex-Brush alone to Cytobrush plus Cervex-Brush for detection of cervical dysplasia in women with a transformation zone type 3

INTRODUCTION

Twenty percent of colposcopic assessments are inadequate due to a type 3 transformation zone (TZ3). In the absence of colposcopic or histological assessment, subsequent management is guided by the referral screening test. In the UK, routine cervical screening is completed by a Cervex-Brush alone. This study examines the effectiveness of a Cytobrush in addition to a standard Cervex-Brush when used in TZ3 assessment.

METHODOLOGY

An 18-month diagnostic accuracy study in a single National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Women with a TZ3 booked for large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) with a referral cytology of high-risk HPV and squamous dyskaryosis were recruited. Immediately prior to LLETZ, a Cervex-Brush plus Cytobrush liquid-based cytology sample was taken. Presence of endocervical cells was compared. Predictability of high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) was by blind standardised reporting of the LLETZ histology.

RESULTS

One hundred and five women were recruited from a total eligible population of 153 cases (68.8%). Endocervical cell yield was increased with the Cervex-Brush plus Cytobrush when compared to the Cervex-Brush alone (99.1% vs 79.1%, P < .001). Irrespective of cytological grade, age or parity, there was no difference in predictability of CIN2+ between sampling methods.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to Cervex-Brush sampling alone, the addition of a Cytobrush improves endocervical sampling but does not improve cytological predictability of CIN2+ in women with a TZ3. These data suggest that women who will reliably attend for cytological follow-up can be safely referred to primary care for a Cervex-Brush alone.

Unsatisfactory colposcopy: clinical decision-making in conditions of uncertainty

BACKGROUND

Unsatisfactory colposcopy, where the cells of interest are not visible in women with a positive cervical screening test, is a common area of clinical uncertainty due to the lack of clear evidence and guidance. Colposcopists' opinions and experiences are likely to have a significant influence on service provision and the development of national policy. The aim of this study was to analyse decision-making when applied to women with unsatisfactory colposcopy.

METHODS

A multi-centre qualitative study utilizing a series of focus groups in an English healthcare region. Sampling aimed to ensure heterogeneity of experience and healthcare provider demographics. A topic guide covered a range of clinical and cytological variables and was compiled by the researchers and three expert Colposcopists. Using an iterative approach, thematic analysis was selected as the most appropriate method to identify factors affecting decision-making.

RESULTS

Twenty-three Colposcopists from four units participated. The decision to treat was easier in women with high-grade cytology and high risk women with low-grade cytology such as heavy smokers, poor attenders, older women, those who had completed their families and women opting for treatment. Where decision-making was more complex, intuition and a multi-disciplinary approach were used to guide management. Areas of dissonance, which are affected by paucity of evidence and emotive factors, included cytological collection device, clinical setting and length of conservative follow-up and depth of excision in women at high risk of treatment-related morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety of missing a cancer deters long-term cytological follow-up, resulting in heterogeneity of care and higher than anticipated excisional treatments in women with low-grade screening and unsatisfactory colposcopy. In areas of clinical uncertainty when decisions are dominated by affect, clinical guidance can reduce the difficulty and anxiety of decision-making.

Comparison of the Cervex-Brush® Combi and the Cytobrush+Ayres Spatula Combination for Cervical Sampling in Liquid-Based Cytology

OBJECTIVES

To compare the performance of two cervical collection devices (Cytobrush+Ayres spatula and Cervex-Brush® Combi) for cellular sampling, transformation zone representation and accuracy in diagnosing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+.

METHODS

Cervical samples were collected from patients referred to the colposcopy unit of the Barretos Cancer Hospital between September 2013 and October 2014 using one of the two sampling devices. Additionally, colposcopy was performed with or without cervical biopsy and/or endocervical curettage.

RESULTS

Biopsy was performed in 670 of the 1,235 patients submitted to colposcopy (54.2%). The Cervex-Brush® Combi was more effective than the Cytobrush with respect to endocervical cells sampling (82.7% versus 74.6%; p = 0.001). Sensitivity was also higher with the Cervex-Brush® Combi (48.6% versus 33.9%; p = 0.023) for predicting CIN2+ when high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions were detected at cytology.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervex-Brush® Combi was more effective than Cytobrush+Ayres Spatula for endocervical cells sampling and also had a slightly higher accuracy in predicting histologically CIN2+ lesions in patients with diagnosis of HSIL in cytology.

Authors attain comparable or slightly higher rates of citation publishing in an open access journal (CytoJournal) compared to traditional cytopathology journals - A five year (2007-2011) experience

BACKGROUND

The era of Open Access (OA) publication, a platform which serves to better disseminate scientific knowledge, is upon us, as more OA journals are in existence than ever before. The idea that peer-reviewed OA publication leads to higher rates of citation has been put forth and shown to be true in several publications. This is a significant benefit to authors and is in addition to another relatively less obvious but highly critical component of the OA charter, i.e. retention of the copyright by the authors in the public domain. In this study, we analyzed the citation rates of OA and traditional non-OA publications specifically for authors in the field of cytopathology.

DESIGN

We compared the citation patterns for authors who had published in both OA and traditional non-OA peer-reviewed, scientific, cytopathology journals. Citations in an OA publication (CytoJournal) were analyzed comparatively with traditional non-OA cytopathology journals (Acta Cytologica, Cancer Cytopathology, Cytopathology, and Diagnostic Cytopathology) using the data from web of science citation analysis site (based on which the impact factors (IF) are calculated). After comparing citations per publication, as well as a time adjusted citation quotient (which takes into account the time since publication), we also analyzed the statistics after excluding the data for meeting abstracts.

RESULTS

Total 28 authors published 314 publications as articles and meeting abstracts (25 authors after excluding the abstracts). The rate of citation and time adjusted citation quotient were higher for OA in the group where abstracts were included (P < 0.05 for both). The rates were also slightly higher for OA than non-OA when the meeting abstracts were excluded, but the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.57 and P = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

We observed that for the same author, the publications in the OA journal attained a higher rate of citation than the publications in the traditional non-OA journals in the field of cytopathology over a 5 year period (2007-2011). However, this increase was statistically insignificant if the meeting abstracts were excluded from the analysis. Overall, the rates of citation for OA and non-OA were slightly higher to comparable.

Transformation zone sampling rate used as a performance indicator for cervical liquid-based cytology sample-takers

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the sampling performance of individual cervical cytology practitioners using the transformation zone sampling rate (TZSR) as a performance indicator and to assess the impact of dedicated on site training for those identified with a low TZSR.

METHODS

The TZSR was calculated for all practitioners submitting ThinPrep(®) cervical cytology specimens to the Conquest laboratory between January 2010 and November 2011. After excluding those with less than 30 qualifying samples the 10th percentile of the TZSR was calculated. Practitioners with a TZSR below the 10th percentile were visited by a specialist cervical cytology screening facilitator after which the TZSR of these practitioners was closely monitored.

RESULTS

After exclusions there were 175 practitioners who had collected 24 358 qualifying liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples. The average TZSR was 70% (range 12-96%). The 10th percentile was 44%; 18 scored below the 10th percentile. Failure to apply sufficient pressure when sampling was identified as the most common reason for a low TZSR. In some cases there was suspicion that the cervix was not always adequately visualized. Continuous monitoring after assessment identified improvement in the TZSRs of 13/18 practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of practitioners with low TZSRs compared with their peers allows these individuals to be selected for personalized observation and training by a specialist in cervical cytology which can lead to an improvement in TZSR. As previous studies show a significant correlation between the TZSR and the detection rate of cytological abnormality it is useful to investigate low TZSRs.