Premium
Cost‐effectiveness of liquid‐based cytology with or without hybrid‐capture II HPV test compared with conventional Pap smears: A study by the French society of clinical cytology
Author(s) -
CochandPriollet Béatrix,
Cartier Isabelle,
de Cremoux Patricia,
Le Galès Catherine,
Ziol Marianne,
Molinié Vincent,
Petitjean Alain,
Dosda Anne,
Merea Estelle,
Biaggi Anciade,
Gouget Isabelle,
Arkwright Sylviane,
VacherLavenu MarieCécile,
Vielh Philippe,
Coste Joël
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
diagnostic cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.417
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1097-0339
pISSN - 8755-1039
DOI - 10.1002/dc.20283
Subject(s) - colposcopy , medicine , liquid based cytology , cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , cytology , pap test , gynecology , population , gold standard (test) , cervical cancer , obstetrics , cervical cancer screening , cancer , pathology , environmental health
Many articles concerning conventional Pap smears, ThinPrep® liquid‐based cytology (LBC) and Hybrid‐Capture II HPV test (HC II) have been published. This study, carried out by the French Society of Clinical Cytology, may be conspicuous for several reasons: it was financially independent; it compared the efficiency of the conventional Pap smear and LBC, of the conventional Pap smear and HC II, and included an economic study based on real costs; for all the women, a “gold standard” reference method, colposcopy, was available and biopsies were performed whenever a lesion was detected; The conventional Pap smear, the LBC (split‐sample technique), the colposcopy, and the biopsies were done at the same time. This study included 2,585 women shared into two groups: a group A of a high‐risk population, a group B of a screening population. The statistical analysis of the results showed that conventional Pap smears consistently had superior or equivalent sensitivity and specificity than LBC for the lesions at threshold CIN‐I (Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia) or CIN‐II or higher. It underlined the low specificity of the HC II. Finally, the LBC mean cost was never covered by the Social Security tariff. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2005;33:338–343. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.