|
KMID : 0358419700130090391
|
|
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
1970 Volume.13 No. 9 p.391 ~ p.396
|
|
|
Relative Accuracy of Cytological Screening Method of for Uterine Cancer -Papanicolaou method and Fluorescent Method-
|
|
정형근/Chung HK
전종수/권영진/곽달현/Chun JS/Kwan YJ/Kwak DH
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
For many years the traditional Papanicolaou stain is employed in cytological screening of uterine cancer and still it is thought to be an universal technique of this field. In 1962 Riva and Turner introduced the Acridine orange method being real on the fluoresent microscope and this has now become a well popularized technique in some parts of the world. In order to compare the relative accuracy of theae two techniques 2 smears were obstained at once from each of 2997 random patient in the department of Obstetrics anf Gynecology, Cheil Hospital from july 1968 to March 1969. The Papanicolaous stained smears were read by a pathologist while the others were carried out by a gynecologist. About 49%(23:47) of the patients with abnormal smears(Class Ⅲ,Ⅳand Ⅴ) in the Papanicolaou method and about 41%(31:75)of those in the Acridine orange method could be subjected to histological diagnosis by either multiple punch biopsy or cone knife biopsy. Results: 1. The abnormal smear was found in 1.6% by the Papanicolaou method and 2.6% by the Acridine orange method. The positive smears(Class Ⅳand Ⅴ) were found to be 0.7% in each method, however, there were markedly high incidence of suspicious smears in the Acridine orange method such as 1.8% : 0.9%. 2. Histological diagnosis of malignancy was made in 82.6% of the patients with abnormal smears by the Papanicolaou method and 80.6% of those by the Acridine orange technique. 3. The false positive rate of Acridine orange method was higher than the other method, 5.6% : 3.7%, and the false negative rate showed the other way, 23.4%:36.8%. 4. The false negative rate took place in both smears were significantly decreased to 13.4%. 5. The potencial error of the Papanicolaou method was 10.9% and that if the other method was 9.4%, however, the potencial error took place in both smears were only 2.9%. This figure is a good evidence that these two techniques each other in improving the potencial error.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|