Comparación del Papanicolau con técnica convencional frente a técnica modificada / Comparison of the Pap smear with conventional technique versus modified technique
Keywords:
Prueba de Papanicolau, Células Escamosas Atípicas del Cuello Uterino, displasia del Cuello del Útero / Papanicolau Test, Atypical Squamous Cell of the Cervix, Uterine Cervical DysplasiaAbstract
Resumen
Introducción: a pesar de que la técnica de papanicolaou es el método más eficaz para la prevención y detección del cáncer cervicouterino, la precisión de esta herramienta sigue siendo controversial; debido a esto, existen esfuerzos médicos y científicos para mejorar la calidad del procedimiento.
Objetivo: comparar la calidad en la toma de muestra entre la técnica convencional y la modificada.
Material y métodos: estudio observacional descriptivo y comparativo en 150 muestras de citología cervical (75 muestras técnica convencional y 75 en técnica modificada) en mujeres de 25 a 64 años. Se analizaron variables demográficas, características del cérvix y calidad de la muestra. Se realizó estadística descriptiva y medidas de asociación. Estudio con riesgo mayor que el mínimo. Todas las participantes firmaron consentimiento informado.
Resultados: la calidad de la muestra fue satisfactoria en el 92% para la técnica convencional frente al 89.3% para la técnica modificada. La causa principal de muestras insatisfactorias fue la celularidad insuficiente, la cual se presentó en el 6.7% de las muestras con técnica convencional frente al 12% de la técnica modificada, sin diferencia significativa entre ambas técnicas p = 0.575 (1.37; 0.45-4.1), hallazgos que rechazan la hipótesis de trabajo.
Conclusiones: no hubo diferencia significativa al utilizar ambas pruebas, las muestras con calidad satisfactoria fueron similares entre ambas técnicas.
Abstract
Background: Despite the fact that the Papanicolaou technique is the most effective method of prevention and detection of cervical cancer, the precision of this tool remains controversial; Because of this, there are medical and scientific efforts to improve the quality of the procedure.
Objective: Compare the quality of sampling between the conventional and modified technique.
Material and methods: Descriptive and comparative observational study in 150 cervical cytology samples (75 conventional technique samples and 75 in modified technique) in women aged 25 to 64 years. Demographic variables, characteristics of the cervix and quality of the sample were analyzed. Descriptive statistics and association measures were performed. Study with risk greater than the minimum. All participants signed an informed consent.
Results: The quality of the sample was satisfactory in 92.0% for the conventional technique vs 89.3% for the modified technique. The main cause of unsatisfactory samples was insufficient cellularity 6.7% in conventional technique vs 12% of the modified technique, with no significant difference between both techniques p = 0.575 (1.37; 0.45-4.1), findings that reject the working hypothesis.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference when using both tests, the samples with satisfactory quality were similar between both techniques.
Downloads
References
Hesselink AT, Berkhof J, Van Der Salm ML, Van Splunter AP, Geelen TH, Van Kemenade FJ, et al. Clinical Validation of the HPV-Risk Assay, a Novel Real-Time PCR Assay for Detection of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus DNA by Targeting the E7 Region. J Clin Microbiol 2014;52(3):890-6. doi: 10.1128/ JCM.03195-13.
Del Pino M, Alonso I, Rodriguez-Trujillo A, Bernal S, Geraets D, Guimerà N, et al. Comparison of the Analytical and Clinical Performance of Five Tests for the Detection of Human Papillomavirus Genital Infection. J Virol Methods. 2017;248: 238-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2017.07.009.
Basu P, Mittal S, Bhadra Vale D, Chami Kharaji Y. Secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;47:73-85. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2017.08.012.
Jenkins TM, Shojaei H, Song SJ, Schwartz LE. Role of Ancillary Techniques in Cervical Biopsy and Endocervical Curettage Specimens as Follow-Up to Papanicolaou Test Results Indicating a Diagnosis of Atypical Squamous Cells, Cannot Exclude High- Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, or High- Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion. Act Cytol. 2020;64(1-2):155-65. doi: 10.1159/000498888.
Secretaría de Salud. Programa de Acción Específico Prevención y Control del Cáncer de la Mujer 2013 – 2018. [internet] Disponible en : https://www.gob.mx/salud/accionesy-programas/programa-de-accion-especifico-prevencion-ycontrol-del-cancer-de-la-mujer-2013-2018-9275.
Hoda RS, Loukeris K, Abdul-Karim FW. Gynecologic Cytology on Conventional and Liquid- Based Preparations: A Comprehensive Review of Similarities and Differences. Diagn Cytopathol. 2013;41(3):257-78. doi: 10.1002/dc.22842.
Leniz Martelli J, Van De Wyngard V, Lagos M, Barriga MI, Puschel Illanes K, Ferreccio Readi C. Detección precoz del cáncer cervicouterino en Chile: tiempo para el cambio. Rev Méd Chil. 2014;142(8):1047-55. doi: 10.4067/ S0034-98872014000800012.
Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N, Bryant A, MartinHirsch PP, Mustafa RA, et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population (Review) Summary of findings for the main comparison. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 8(8):CD008587. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2.
Canfell K, Caruana M, Gebski V, Darlington-Brown J, Heley S, Brotherton J, et al. Cervical screening with primary HPV testing or cytology in a population of women in which those aged 33 years or younger had previously been offered HPV vaccination: Results of the Compass pilot randomized trial. PLoS Med. 2017;14(9):e1002388. doi: 10.1371/journal. pmed.1002388.
Frayle H, Gori S, Rizzi M, Nives Graziani B, Vian E, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: technical improvement of laboratory logistics and good clinical performance of the cobas 6800 in comparison to the 4800 system. BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1)47. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0743-0.
Gupta S, Palmer C, Bik EM, Cardenas JP, Nuñez H, Kraal L, et al. Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing: Increased Cervical Cancer Screening Participation and Incorporation in International Screening Programs. Front Public Health. 2018;6:77. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00077.
Yadav GS, Donoghue M, Tauro DP, Bharani S, Kumar M, Yadav A. Confounding factors and diagnostic accuracy of imprint cytology. Acta Cytol. 2014;58(1):53-9. DOI: 10.1159/000355289.
Secretaria de salud. Manual de procedimientos para la toma de muestra de citología cervical. Mexico D. F., México. 2006; 10-12 p.
Pankaj S, Nazneen S, Kumari S, Kumari A, Kumari A, Kumari J, et al. Comparison of conventional Pap smear and liquid - based cytology: A study of cervical cancer screening at a tertiary care center in Bihar. Indian J Cancer. 2018;55(1):80- 3. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_352_17.
Moosa NY, Khattak N, Alam MI, Sher A, Shah W, Mobashar S, et al. Comparison of Cervical Cell Morphology Using Two Different Cytology Techniques for Early Detection of PreCancerous Lesions. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(2): 97581. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.2.975.
Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid based cytology and conventional cervical smears. Cancer. 2003;99(6):331-5. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11786.
Morisada T, Saika K, Saito E, Kono K, Saito H, Aoki D. Population-based cohort study assessing the efficacy of cervical cytology (Pap smear) and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as modalities for cervical cancer screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2018;48(5):495-8. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyy025.
Castle PE, Silva VRS, Consolaro MEL, Kienen N, Bittencourt L, Pelloso SM, et al. Participation in cervical screening by selfcollection, pap, or a choice of either in Brazil. Cancer Prev Res. 2019;12(3):159–70. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207. CAPR-18-0419.
Wang J. Analysis of the application values of different combination schemes of liquid-based cytology and high-risk human papilloma virus test in the screening of high-grade cervical lesions. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2019;52(1):e7517. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X20187517.
Satake H, Inaba N, Kanno K, Mihara M, Takagi Y, Kondo N, et al. Comparison Study of Self-Sampled and PhysicianSampled Specimens for High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Test and Cytology. Acta Cytol. 2020;64(5):433-41. doi: 10.1159/000507342.
Song F, Du H, Xiao A, Wang C, Huang X, Liu Z, et al. Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort. J Infect Public Health. 2020;13(11):1780-6. doi: 10.1016/j. jiph.2020.08.008.
Chen CJ, Hong MK, Ding DC. Effective reduction in inadequate Pap smears by using a saline-lubricated speculum and two glass slides. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(6):906-9. doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2020.09.018.
Wentzensen N, Clarke MA. Cervical Cancer ScreeningPast, Present, and Future Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(3):432-4. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1628.
Eun TJ, Perkins RB. Screening for Cervical Cancer. Med Clin North Am. 2020;104(6):1063-78. doi: 10.1016/j.mcna.2020. 08.006.
Joseph AN, Bhatla N. Population-based human papillomavirus testing: The new paradigm for cervical cancer screening. Natl Med J India. 2021;34(1):36-7. doi:10.4103/0970-258X.323447.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain their copyright and grant the Revista Médica del IMSS the right of first publication. Articles are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing as long as the author and the original source are properly credited.
