DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Benefits of Cervical Cancer Screening by Liquid-Based Cytology as Part of Routine Antenatal Assessment

  • Parkpinyo, Nichamon (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Inthasorn, Perapong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Laiwejpithaya, Somsak (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University) ;
  • Punnarat, Tippawan (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University)
  • 발행 : 2016.09.01

초록

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of abnormal cervical cytology, as diagnosed using a liquid-based cytology technique, in pregnant women attending the Antenatal Care (ANC) clinic at Siriraj Hospital. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study included 655 first-visit pregnant women who attended ANC clinic at Siriraj Hospital during June to November 2015 study period. After receiving routine antenatal care, cervical cytology screening was performed with the Siriraj liquid-based cytology technique. All specimens were reviewed by a certified cytopathologist using Bethesda System 2001 criteria. Patients with abnormal PAP results characterized as epithelial cell abnormalities were referred to a gynecologic oncologist for further management according to ASCCP Guidelines 2012. Results: Mean age of participants was $28.9{\pm}6.2$ years. Prevalence of abnormal cervical cytology was 3.4% (95% CI: 2.0-4.7). Among this group, there were ASC-US, ASC-H, LSIL, HSIL for 12(1.8%), 2(0.3%), 7(1.1%) and 1(0.2%), respectively. In 633 specimens of the normal group, infection was identified in 158 specimens (24.1%) which were caused by Candida spp. and Trichomonas vaginalis. Regarding patient perception about the importance of cervical cancer screening, although most women perceived screening to be important, 54% of participants had never been screened for cervical cancer. Rate of loss to follow-up in the postpartum period was as high as 41.8%. Conclusions: Prevalence of abnormal cervical cytology in pregnant women attending the ANC clinic at Siriraj Hospital was 3.4%. Inclusion of cervical cancer screening as part of antenatal assessment can help to identify precancerous lesions or cervical cancers in patients who might otherwise not be screened, thereby facilitating early treatment and improved patient outcomes.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : Mahidol University

참고문헌

  1. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131 (2012). Screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol, 120, 1222-38.
  2. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, et al (2008). Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 111, 167-77. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3
  3. Gupta N, Bhar VS, Rajwanshi A, et al (2016). Unsatisfactory rate in liquid-based cervical samples as compared to conventional smears: A study from tertiary care hospital. Cytojournal, 13, 14. https://doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.183831
  4. Khaengkhor P, Mairaing K, Suwannarurk K, et al (2011). Prevalence of abnormal cervical cytology by liquid based cytology in the antenatal care clinic, Thammasat University Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai, 94, 152-8.
  5. Laiwejpithaya S, Rattanachaiyanont M, Benjapibal M, et al (2008). Comparison between Siriraj liquid-based and conventional cytology for detection of abnormal cervicovaginal smears: a split-sample study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 9, 575-80.
  6. Laiwejpithaya S, Benjapibal M, Laiwejpithaya S, et al (2009). Performance and cost analysis of Siriraj liquid-based cytology: a direct-to-vial study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 147, 201-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.08.002
  7. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al (2013). 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol, 121, 829-46. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182883a34
  8. McGraw SL, Ferrante JM (2014). Update on prevention and screening of cervical cancer. World J Clin Oncol, 5, 744-52. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v5.i4.744
  9. McNamara M, Batur P, Walsh JM, et al (2016). HPV update: vaccination, screening, and associated disease. J Gen Intern Med.
  10. Ngaojaruwong N, Vuthiwong C, Punpuckdeekoon P, et al (2008). Prevalence of abnormal papanicolaou smear in pregnant women at Phramongkutklao Hospital. Thai J Obstet Gynaecol, 16, 179-85.
  11. Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, et al (2009). Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. Jama, 302, 1757-64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1569
  12. Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL (2007). Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and metaanalysis. Prev Med, 45, 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.007
  13. Stillson T, Knight AL, Elswick RK, Jr. (1997). The effectiveness and safety of two cervical cytologic techniques during pregnancy. J Fam Pract, 45, 159-63.
  14. Sueblinvong T, Suwannarurk K, Chanthasenanont A, et al (2005). Prevalence and management of abnormal pap smear in antenatal care clinic at Thammasat University Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai, 88, 133-7.
  15. Tanabodee J, Thepsuwan K, Karalak A, et al (2015). Comparison of efficacy in abnormal cervical cell detection between liquid-based cytology and conventional cytology. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 16, 7381-4. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.16.7381

피인용 문헌

  1. Attitude to Human Papillomavirus Deoxyribonucleic Acid-Based Cervical Cancer Screening in Antenatal Care in Nigeria: A Qualitative Study vol.5, pp.2296-2565, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00226