Adoption of liquid-based cytology: technological evaluation

Lapointe A, Erickson L, Brophy J
Record ID 32008100099
French
Authors' objectives:

Historically, screening for pre-cancerous cells or other cells associated with uterine cervical cancer has been carried out using the Papanicolaou, or “Pap” test. To increase the number of cells collected during a Pap smear and to facilitate the preparation of slides for interpretation, liquid-based cytology (LBC) was developed and numerous papers have been published on the sensitivity or cost-effectiveness of this technique.
Recently, HPV DNA testing was developed as a primary screening procedure or as triage when the results of primary screening are equivocal. This technique opens new possibilities for the installation of a screening program in Quebec.


Compared to conventional cytology (CC), LBC still involves collection of cervical cells with a special brush but instead of smearing cells on a glass slide as in CC, they are placed in a sealed container filled with a preservative fluid. This container is then sent to a laboratory appropriately equipped to produce a slide.
The potential advantages of LBC mentioned by the manufacturers are better cell collection giving more uniform slides, a lower rate of unsatisfactory specimens and easier histologic interpretation. Another advantage is that HPV testing can be performed on the fluid remnant after cytologic examination, thus obviating the need for a patient visit when a second test is necessary. A major disadvantage of this technique is the higher costs for cytopathology laboratories.

Report aimed to evaluate the health and economic impact of switching to the systematic use of LBC instead of CC.

Authors' recommendations: Due to the marginal clinical benefits of liquid based cytology and the major cost increase with the adoption of this technology compared to standard Pap smear testing, the Joint Technology Assessment Unit of MUHC and CHUM recommends that both institutions NOT switch to the systematic use of liquid-based cytology at this time.
Authors' methods: Review
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2008
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: Canada
MeSH Terms
  • Canada
Contact
Organisation Name: Technology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)
Contact Address: Technology Assessment Unit of the MUHC, 536-5100 Boul. Maisonneuve O, Montreal, H4A 3T2
Contact Name: eva.suarthana@mcgill.ca
Contact Email: nisha.almeida@muhc.mcgill.ca
Copyright: Technology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.