Rozemeijer Kirsten, Naber Steffie K, Penning Corine, Overbeek Lucy I H, Looman Caspar W N, de Kok Inge M C M, Matthijsse Suzette M, Rebolj Matejka, van Kemenade Folkert J, van Ballegooijen Marjolein
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
BMJ. 2017 Feb 14;356:j504. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j504.
To compare the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed within 72 months after a normal screening sample between conventional cytology and liquid based cytology tests SurePath and ThinPrep. Retrospective population based cohort study. Nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), January 2000 to March 2013. Women with 5 924 474 normal screening samples (23 833 123 person years). Use of SurePath or ThinPrep versus conventional cytology as screening test. 72 month cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer after a normal screening sample for each screening test. Cox regression analyses assessed the hazard ratios, adjusted for calendar time, age, screening history, and socioeconomic status and including laboratories as random effects. The 72 month cumulative cancer incidence was 58.5 (95% confidence interval 54.6 to 62.7) per 100 000 normal conventional cytology samples, compared with 66.8 (56.7 to 78.7) for ThinPrep and 44.6 (37.8 to 52.6) for SurePath. Compared with conventional cytology, the hazard of invasive cancer was 19% lower (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.99) for SurePath, mainly caused by a 27% lower hazard (0.73, 0.57 to 0.93) of a clinically detected cancer. For ThinPrep, the hazard was on average 15% higher (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.95 to 1.38), mainly caused by a 56% higher hazard of a screen detected cancer (1.56, 1.17 to 2.08). These findings should provoke reconsideration of the assumed similarity in sensitivity to detect progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between different types of liquid based cytology and conventional cytology.
比较传统细胞学检查与液基细胞学检查SurePath和ThinPrep在正常筛查样本后72个月内诊断出宫颈癌的累积发病率。基于人群的回顾性队列研究。荷兰全国组织病理学和细胞病理学网络及登记处(PALGA),2000年1月至2013年3月。有5924474份正常筛查样本的女性(23833123人年)。使用SurePath或ThinPrep与传统细胞学作为筛查试验。每种筛查试验在正常筛查样本后侵袭性宫颈癌的72个月累积发病率。Cox回归分析评估了风险比,对日历时间、年龄、筛查史和社会经济状况进行了调整,并将实验室作为随机效应纳入。每100000份正常传统细胞学样本的72个月累积癌症发病率为58.5(95%置信区间54.6至62.7),ThinPrep为66.8(56.7至78.7),SurePath为44.6(37.8至52.6)。与传统细胞学相比,SurePath侵袭性癌症的风险低19%(风险比0.81,95%置信区间0.66至0.99),主要是由于临床检测到的癌症风险低27%(0.73,0.57至0.93)。对于ThinPrep,风险平均高15%(风险比1.15,0.95至l.38),主要是由于筛查发现的癌症风险高56%(1.56,1.17至2.08)。这些发现应促使人们重新考虑不同类型液基细胞学与传统细胞学在检测进展性宫颈上皮内瘤变方面假定的敏感性相似性。