From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

No Evidence That Liquid Is Better Than Conventional Cervical Cytology

So, why is the more expensive method preferred?

Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has rapidly become the preferred method for preserving and analyzing cellular material collected from the transformation zone of the uterine cervix with a spatula or a brush. With LBC, cells are first transferred into a liquid fixative and then concentrated and uniformly spread on slides for evaluation. LBC is much more costly than conventional cervical cytology, but is it better?

In a systematic review, investigators identified nine studies in which both conventional and liquid-based methods were evaluated; they all included validation of results by colposcopy and biopsy. The relative sensitivity and the specificity, using high-grade or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions as cutoff points, did not differ between the two techniques. Specificity was lower (false-positive rate was higher) for LBC when atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance were used as the cutoff.

Comment: Even though the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently considers evidence to be insufficient to recommend a method for performing Pap smears, liquid-based cytology has become the standard. Insurance companies that will pay less than the cost for conventional cytology willingly have absorbed the cost of this more expensive approach. One reason for this method’s popularity is that it allows human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to be performed; another reason could be effective marketing. Time will tell whether HPV testing should replace histologic cytology for screening, but, as an editorialist notes, we should remain skeptical about liquid-based cytology if it increases false-positives and leads to additional testing and emotional concerns for women with mild abnormalities.

Robert W. Rebar, MD

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine January 29, 2008

Citation(s):

Arbyn M et al. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008 Jan; 111:167.

Sawaya GF. Evidence-based medicine versus liquid-based cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2008 Jan; 111:2.

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. Please consider this when composing your remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Article Tools

Reader Remarks

Related Content

Sign-In

Forgot your password?

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2008. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.