Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-03.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Liquid-Based Cytology Using MonoPrep2(TM) System in Cervicovaginal Cytology: Comparative Study with Conventional Pap Smear and Histology.
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

J Pathol Transl Med : Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Pathol Transl Med > Volume 15(1); 2004 > Article
Original Article Liquid-Based Cytology Using MonoPrep2(TM) System in Cervicovaginal Cytology: Comparative Study with Conventional Pap Smear and Histology.
Yoon Kyung Jeon, Ok Ran Kim, Ki Wha Park, Soon Beom Kang, In Ae Park
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine 2004;15(1):33-39
DOI: https://doi.org/
1Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. IAPARK@plaza.snu.ac.kr
2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 1,628 Views
  • 18 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus

We compared the diagnostic accuracy of liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology using MonoPrep2(TM) system (Monogen, Herndon, Virginia, USA), a manual system based on membrane filtration method, with conventional Pap smear. Study population included 92 patients visiting the gynecologic department under the suspicion of uterine cervical disease. In thirty of them, surgical biopsy was performed. MonoPrep2(TM) system provided well-preserved monolayer specimen with good nuclear morphology. However, about 19% of specimens were inadequate to interpret due to low cellularity. The detection rate of abnormal cells more than ASCUS (atypical squamous cells of unknown significance) was 23.9% and higher than 19.4 % of conventional Pap smear. Diagnostic concordance rate with conventional Pap smear was 81%, and severe discordance rate influencing on the management of patient was 7.6 %. Among these seven cases, MonoPrep2(TM) system was more diagnostic only in four. In comparison with histology, the sensitivity of diagnosis of MonoPrep2(TM) system was 78.9% and slightly higher than 73.5% of conventional Pap smear. However, the specificity was 81.1% and lower than 90.9% of Pap smear. In conclusion, MonoPrep2(TM) system provided diagnostic accuracies similar to the conventional Pap smear. The inexpertness of slide preparation and the low cellularity were considered to endow a limitation in more accurate evaluation.

Related articles

J Pathol Transl Med : Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine