In recent years the self-collecting method of smear taking has become popular in Japan, for the early detection of carcinoma of the cervix, and in mass screening. However, most doctors think that the selfcollecting method's diagnostic accuracy rate for malignancy is far lower than that of ordinary methods, such as professional scraping in outpatients' clinics. This study sets out to decide which cytologic technique is more accurate, and what per cent of false negative results arise from them individually.
In 1972 in the outpatients' clinic of the Center for Adult Diseases in Osaka, the authors examined about 3886 cases for possible uterine cancer. Those finally diagnosed as such numbered 273. -If we say “negative” regarding doctor-taken smear, but the case is diagnosed within a year as CIS, then we judge it to be false negative. But if it is not diagnosed as CIS until after a year has passed from the first diagnosis, we do not call it false negative. With invasive carcinoma, if within 2 years the case is diagnosed as invasive carcinoma, we say it is false negative, but if after 2 years it is diagnosed as invasive carcinoma, we do not call it false negative. -According to this criterion, false negative cases among the 273 for carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma of the cervix numbered 33, and true positive numbered 121.
We applied the same criterion to 6943 self-collecting smears performed from 1973 through 1976. Those finally diagnosed as uterine cancer numbered 180. Final diagnosis of false negative among them for carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma of the cervix were 3, and true positive 34.
According to the formula false negative rate (%)=false negative cases/true positive cases+false negative cases×100, We found that the rate of false negative cases in the outpatients' clinic was 21.4% and that with the selfcollecting method it was 8.1%.
Only from the examination of such cases can we get the true false negative rate. If we compare only the statistics, then it looks as if the physician-scraped collection technique is worse than that of the selfcollecting smear method. Of course outpatients' clinic cases are sometimes very difficult to diagnose, and need further examination. But on the other hand, the self-collecting smear method usually allows only one chance in a year for examination, and if diagnosed as negative when actually they are positive, can lead to most serious consequences.
It is difficult, therefore, to make a flat statement regarding which technique is altogether more valuable. However, the authors would like to say as a kind of reassurance that the self-collecting smear method is not as unreliable as it is generally held to be in the early detection of cervical cancer.
View full abstract