Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness between Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi for the diagnosis of cervical lesions.Methods: After we registered a random-control clinical trial on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. XJTU1AF2017LSK-25), cervical cell samples were successively collected with...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020-07-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmed.2020.00369/full |
| _version_ | 1828870878492884992 |
|---|---|
| author | Yuliang Zou Xiaoqian Tuo Lei Wu Yanli Liu Xue Feng Lanbo Zhao Lu Han Lei Wang Yiran Wang Huilian Hou Guizhi Shi Qiling Li |
| author_facet | Yuliang Zou Xiaoqian Tuo Lei Wu Yanli Liu Xue Feng Lanbo Zhao Lu Han Lei Wang Yiran Wang Huilian Hou Guizhi Shi Qiling Li |
| author_sort | Yuliang Zou |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: To compare the effectiveness between Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi for the diagnosis of cervical lesions.Methods: After we registered a random-control clinical trial on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. XJTU1AF2017LSK-25), cervical cell samples were successively collected with both Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi before undergoing colposcope. Colposcopy with biopsy was performed later. Histological diagnosis was regarded as the gold standard in this study. The following indices of the two brushes were compared: sampling degree of satisfaction and presence rate of metaplastic cells, together with sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), false positives (FP), false negatives (FN), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The kappa value was used to measure the inter-rater agreement of the Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi in diagnosing cervical lesions.Results: In total, 74 patients were enrolled in this study. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Qi brush were 57.14, 86.84, 76.19, and 73.33%, respectively. For the Cervex-Brush® Combi, they were 26.92, 88.89, 63.63, and 62.75%, respectively. In addition, the Qi brush had a higher satisfied sampling rate (89.19%) than the Cervex-Brush® Combi (83.78%), and the P-value was 0.336 using Chi-square test. The kappa value was 0.444, which indicated a medium agreement between these two brushes, and the sensitivity of the Qi brush was higher than that of the Cervex-Brush® Combi, with significant statistical difference (P = 0.039<0.05).Conclusions: The Qi brush was more effective than the Cervex-Brush® Combi for sampling and also had a slightly higher accuracy in diagnosing in cytology. In terms of social and economic benefits, the Qi brush may be a better cervical cytology collector. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T06:20:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-86cbe4d14fda4b9aa86942349987a991 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-858X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T06:20:58Z |
| publishDate | 2020-07-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-86cbe4d14fda4b9aa86942349987a9912022-12-21T23:56:51ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Medicine2296-858X2020-07-01710.3389/fmed.2020.00369551303Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® CombiYuliang Zou0Xiaoqian Tuo1Lei Wu2Yanli Liu3Xue Feng4Lanbo Zhao5Lu Han6Lei Wang7Yiran Wang8Huilian Hou9Guizhi Shi10Qiling Li11Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaDepartment of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaAviation General Hospital of Beijing, Medical University and Beijing Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, ChinaObjectives: To compare the effectiveness between Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi for the diagnosis of cervical lesions.Methods: After we registered a random-control clinical trial on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. XJTU1AF2017LSK-25), cervical cell samples were successively collected with both Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi before undergoing colposcope. Colposcopy with biopsy was performed later. Histological diagnosis was regarded as the gold standard in this study. The following indices of the two brushes were compared: sampling degree of satisfaction and presence rate of metaplastic cells, together with sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), false positives (FP), false negatives (FN), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The kappa value was used to measure the inter-rater agreement of the Qi brush and Cervex-Brush® Combi in diagnosing cervical lesions.Results: In total, 74 patients were enrolled in this study. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Qi brush were 57.14, 86.84, 76.19, and 73.33%, respectively. For the Cervex-Brush® Combi, they were 26.92, 88.89, 63.63, and 62.75%, respectively. In addition, the Qi brush had a higher satisfied sampling rate (89.19%) than the Cervex-Brush® Combi (83.78%), and the P-value was 0.336 using Chi-square test. The kappa value was 0.444, which indicated a medium agreement between these two brushes, and the sensitivity of the Qi brush was higher than that of the Cervex-Brush® Combi, with significant statistical difference (P = 0.039<0.05).Conclusions: The Qi brush was more effective than the Cervex-Brush® Combi for sampling and also had a slightly higher accuracy in diagnosing in cytology. In terms of social and economic benefits, the Qi brush may be a better cervical cytology collector.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmed.2020.00369/fullQi brushCervex-Brush® Combicervical cancercervical cytologyscreening |
| spellingShingle | Yuliang Zou Xiaoqian Tuo Lei Wu Yanli Liu Xue Feng Lanbo Zhao Lu Han Lei Wang Yiran Wang Huilian Hou Guizhi Shi Qiling Li Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi Frontiers in Medicine Qi brush Cervex-Brush® Combi cervical cancer cervical cytology screening |
| title | Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi |
| title_full | Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi |
| title_short | Comparison of Cervical Cytopathological Diagnosis Using Innovative Qi Brush and Traditional Cervex-Brush® Combi |
| title_sort | comparison of cervical cytopathological diagnosis using innovative qi brush and traditional cervex brush r combi |
| topic | Qi brush Cervex-Brush® Combi cervical cancer cervical cytology screening |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmed.2020.00369/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yuliangzou comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT xiaoqiantuo comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT leiwu comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT yanliliu comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT xuefeng comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT lanbozhao comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT luhan comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT leiwang comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT yiranwang comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT huilianhou comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT guizhishi comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi AT qilingli comparisonofcervicalcytopathologicaldiagnosisusinginnovativeqibrushandtraditionalcervexbrushcombi |