Liquid-based cytology and pap smear: a comparative evaluation in cervical cancer diagnosis Authors

Introduction: To increase early diagnosis and screening reliability, Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) and Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) are essential for the detection of cervical cancer. The research's conclusions can help medical practitioners choose the most effective course of action in various circumstances, inform economic screening methods, and address global inequalities in cervical cancer outcomes. Furthermore, even when the advantages of either approach are well understood, a doctor's choice of the best technique—whether LBC or CPS—at the correct time may be influenced by various factors and clinical settings. Purpose of the study. The investigations aim to assess the efficacy of LBC and CPS across numerous cytological parameters by evaluating the results against conventional criteria of specificity and sensitivity. Methods and Materials: A comparative cross-sectional study involving 100 samples of Conventional Pap Smear (CPS) and 20 samples of Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) was conducted with 120 women, whose mean age was 45±9.5 years, presenting with gynaecological complaints at the Institute of Medical Research in Kuala Lumpur. Samples are analysed using several cytological characteristics, including sensitivity, specificity, pathogenic organisms, and adequacy rates of LBC and CPS. A standardised grading system ranging from 1 to 4, indicating poor to excellent performance, is employed in accordance with the Bethesda method. Virgins, expectant mothers, known cases of gynaecological cancer, and slides in poor shape are all grounds for exclusion. Research Result: The findings showed that LBC performed much better than CPS in terms of specificity (96% vs. 88%) and sensitivity (92%), CPS versus 15 (78% LBC) (P0.05). Three (15%) LBC smears and 35 (35%) Pap smears had hemorrhagic backgrounds (P