New technology in Papanicolaou smear processing

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 410-417

  Dunton, Charles J ^a,b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

CERVIX UTERI; CLINICAL TRIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0033924362     PISSN: 00099201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200006000-00019     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Austin RM. Who should decide how effective cervical cancer screening will be? Acta Cytol. 1999;43:4-6.
2. Brown DB, Garber AM. The cost-effectiveness of three new technologies to enhance Pap testing. Chicago, IL: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, 1998.
3. ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice: Committee Opinion: New Pap test screening techniques. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, 1998.
4. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 5 (Prepared by Duke University under Contract No. 290-97-0014) AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010. Rockvillè, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, February 1999.
5. Zahniser DJ, Hurley AA. Automated slide preparation system for the clinical laboratory. Cytometry. 1996;26:60-64.
6. Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, MA. ThinPrep®2000 System. Product Information 1995.
7. Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S, James LP, Berger BM, Bonfiglio TA. ThinPrep™Processor: Clinical trials demonstrate an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytologic specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:209-214.
8. Sheets EE, Constantine NM, Dinisco S, Dean B, Cibas ES. Colposcopically directed biopsies provide a basis for comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep™ and Papanicolaou smears. J Gynecol Techniques. 1995;1:27-33.
9. Corkill M, Knapp D, Martin J, Hutchinson ML. Improved accuracy for cervical cytology with the ThinPrep method and the endocervical brush-spatula collection procedure. J Lower Gen Tract Dis. 1998;2:12-16.
10. Aponte-Cipriani SL, Teplitz C, Rorat E, Savino A, Jacobs AJ. Cervical smears prepared by an automated device versus the conventional method. A comparative analysis. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:623-630.
11. Hutchinson ML, Cassin CM, Ball HG 3d. The efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1991;96:300-305.
12. Awen C, Hathway S, Eddy W, Voskuil R, Janes C. Efficacy of ThinPrep® Preparation of cervical smears: A 1,000-case, investigator-sponsored study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994;11:33-37.
13. Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T, Berger B, Cibas ES. A new look at cervical cytology: ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:499-504.
14. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:203-208.
15. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:209-213.
16. Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of Auto-Cyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:189-197.
17. Vassilakos P, Griffin S, Megevand E, Campana A. CytoRich liquid-based cervical cytologic test. Screening results in a routine cytopathology service. Acta Cytol. 1998; 42:198-202.
18. Ashfaq R, Gibbons D, Vela C, Saboorian MH, Iliya F. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:
19. Mango LJ. Computer-assisted cervical cancer screening using neural networks. Cancer Lett. 1994;77:155-162.
20. Sherman ME, Mango LJ, Kelly D, et al. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 1994;7:578-581.
21. 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.
22. Boon ME, Kok LP, Beck S. Histologic validation of neural network-assisted cervical screening: Comparison with the conventional procedure. Cell Vision. 1995; 2:23-27.
23. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: Results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacoste, Costa Rica. Cancer Cytopathol. 1998;84:273-80.
24. Colgan TJ, Patten SF Jr, Lee JS. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC system for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cytol. 1995; 39:1191-1198.
25. Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA, et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC System for cervical cytologic abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:127-132.
26. Fetterman B, Pawlick G, Koo H, Hartinger J, Gilbert C, Connell S. Determining the utility and effectiveness of the NeoPath AutoPap 300 QC System used routinely. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:13-22.
27. Bibbo M, Hawthorne C. Performance of the AutoPap primary screening system at Jefferson University Hospital. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:27-29.
28. Bishop JW, Kaufman RH, Taylor DA. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic preparations. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:34-38.
29. Howell LP, Belk T, Agdigos R, Davis R, Lowe J. AutoCyte Interactive Screening System. Experience at a university hospital cytology laboratory. Acta Cytol. 1999;43: 58-64.
30. Spitzer M. Cervical screening adjuncts: Recent advances. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 179:544-56.
31. Schneider A, Zahm D. New adjunctive methods for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1996;23:3657-3673.
32. Mitchell MF, Cantor SB, Ramanujam N, Tortolero-Luna G, Richards-Kortum R. Fluorescence spectroscopy for diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:462-470.
33. Dunton CJ, van Hoeven KH, Kovatich AJ, et al. Ki-67 antigen staining as an adjunct to identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 1997;64:451-455.
34. Liao SY, Brewer C, Zavada J, et al. Identification of the MN antigen as a diagnostic biomarker of cervical intraepithelial squamous and glandular neoplasia and cervical carcinomas. Am J Pathol. 1994;145:598-609.
35. Editorial. Assessing the cost and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:4-8.
36. Bartels PH, Vooijs GP. Automation of primary screening for cervical cancer. Sooner or later? Acta Cytol. 1999;43:7-12.
37. Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:178-84.