Automated cervical cytology: Meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET system

Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey

Volumn 54, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 253-264

  Abulafia, Ovadia ^a   Sherer, David M ^b  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOANALYSIS; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC CANCER; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 0032927799     PISSN: 00297828     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00006254-199904000-00022     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1941;42:193-206.
2. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: A triumph and a tragedy. J Am Med Assoc 1989;261:737-743.
3. Guzick DS. Efficacy of screening for cervical cancer: A review. Am J Public Health 1978;68:125-134.
4. Dickinson L, Mussey ME, Soule EH et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of cytologic screening for cervical cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 1972;47:534-544.
5. Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M et al. The false-negative rate in cervical cytology: Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996;40:81-89.
6. Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W et al. The validation of cervical cytology: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Acta Cytol 1992;35:8-14.
7. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Proceedings of Hematology and Pathology Devices Advisory Panel Meeting. Washington DC, August 7, 1995.
8. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health: Proceedings of Hematology and Pathology Devices Advisory Panel Meeting. Washington DC, August 8, 1995.
9. Boon ME. Kok LP. Neural network processing can provide means to catch errors that slip through human screening of Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:411-416.
10. Boon ME, Kok LP, Nygaard-Nielsen M et al. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficiency: a study of 63 false-negative smears. Mod Pathol 1994;7:957-961.
11. Rosenthal DL, Acosta, Peters RK. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false-negative cervical smears using the PAPNET testing system. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:120-126.
12. Koss LG, Lin E, Schreber K, Elgert P, Mango L. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears. Anatomic Pathology 1994;101:220-9.
13. Denaro TJ, Herriman JM, Shapira O. PAPNET testing system: Technical update. Acta Cytol 1997;41:65-73.
14. Kok MR, Boon ME. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening. Cancer 1996;78:112-117.
15. Michelow PM, Hlongwane NF, Lemon G. Simulation of primary cervical cancer screening by the PAPNET system in an unscreened, high-risk community. Acta Cytol 1997;41:88-92.
16. Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Boon ME, Beck S. Computer-assisted primary screening of cervical smears using the PAPNET method: Comparison with conventional screening and evaluation of the role of the cytologist. Cytopathology 1994; 5:211-218.
17. Slagel DD, Zaleski S, Cohen MB. The efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening. Diag Cytopathol 1995;13:26-30.
18. Koss LG, Lin E, Schreiber K et al. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for the quality control of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:220-229.
19. Ashfaq R, Liang Y, Saboorian MH. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of negative smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:31-36.
20. Keyhani-Rofagha S, Palma T, O'Toole RV. Automated screening for quality control using PAPNET: A study of 638 negative Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1996;14:316-320.
21. Sherman ME, Mango LJ, Paul G et al. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma. Mod Pathol 1994;7:578-581.
22. Farnsworth A, Chambers F, Goldschmidt C. PAPNET. An australian experience of over 60,000 cases. Med J Aust 1996; 165:429-431.
23. Rosenthal DL, Acosta D, Peters RK. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false-negative smears using the PAPNET testing system. Acta Cytol 1996;40:120-126.
24. Jenny J, Isenegger I, Boon ME et al. Consistency of a double PAPNET scan of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1997;41:82-87.
25. Doornewaard H, van de Seijp H, Woudt JMC et al. Negative cervical smears before CIN 3 carcinoma. Acta Cytol 1997;41: 74-78.
26. Ryan MR, Stastny JF, Pedigo MA et al. PAPNET-directed rescreening of cervicovaginal smears: A study of 101 cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined origin. Am J Clin Pathol 1996;105:711-718.
27. Mango LJ, Valente PT. Neural network-assisted and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. Acta Cytol 1998;42:227-232.
28. Solomon HM, Frist S. PAPNET testing for HSILs: The few cell/small cell challenge. Acta Cytol 1998;42:253-259.
29. Mitchell H, Medley G. Detection of unsuspected abnormalities by PAPNET-assisted review. Acta Cytol 1998;42:260-264.
30. Mitchell H, Medley G. Detection of laboratory false-negative smears by the PAPNET cytologic screening system. Acta Cytol 1998;42:265-270.
31. Koss LG, Sherman ME, Cohen MB et al. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System). Hum Pathol 1997;28:1196-1203.
32. Duggan ME, Brasher P. Paired comparison of manual and automated Pap test screening using the PAPNET system. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:248-254.
33. Cenci M, Nagar C, Giovagnoli MR et al. The PAPNET system for quality control of cervical smears: Validation and limits. Anticancer Res 1997;17:4731-4734.
34. Stastny JF, Remmers RE, London WB et al. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: A comparative review of original and automated rescreen diagnosis of cervicovaginal smears with long-term follow-up. Cancer Cytopathol 1997;81:348-353.
35. O'Leary TJ, Tellado M, Buckner SB et al. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears. J Am Med Assoc 1998;279: 235-237.
36. Peipert JF, Bracken MB. Systemic reviews of medical evidence: The use of meta-analysis in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:628-633.
37. Radensky PW, Mango LJ. Interactive neural network-assisted screening - An economic assessment. Acta Cytol 1998;42: 246-252.
38. Schlechter CB. Cost-effectiveness of rescreening conventionally prepared cervical smears by PAPNET. Acta Cytol 1996; 46:1272-1282.
39. ACOG Committee Opinion. New Pap Test Screening Techniques, No. 206, August 1998.