Effectiveness of the SurePath Liquid-Based Pap Test in Automated Screening and in Detection of HSIL

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 250-255

  Cengel, Keith A ^a   Day, Sarah J ^b   Davis Devine, Sharon ^b   Adams, Christina L ^b   Madison Henness, Darcy ^b   Hartman, Matthew E ^c   Freund, Gregory G ^b,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b Carle Clinic   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Automated screening; FocalPoint; Liquid based Pap test; Squamous intraepithelial lesion; SurePath

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; STANDARDIZATION; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX DISEASE;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0242362673     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.10373     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, et al. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening. Acta Cytol 1998;42:221-226.
2. Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens. A potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:399-407.
3. FocalPoint Slide Profiler (product insert). Burlington, NC: TriPath Imaging; 2002.
4. Bibbo M, Hawthorne C. Performance of the AutoPap primary screening system at Jefferson University Hospital. Acta Cytol 1999;43:27-29.
5. Wilbur DC, Pry MU, Miller WM, et al. Detection of high grade squamous interepithelial lesions and tumors using the AutoPap System: results of a primary screening clinical trial. Cancer 1999;87:354-358.
6. Vassilakos P, Carrel S, Petignant P, et al. Use of automated primary screening on liquid-based, thin-layer preparations. Acta Cytol 2002;46:291-295.
7. Vassilakos P, Saurel J, Rondez R. Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte Prep liquid-based preparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol 1999;43:65-68.
8. Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte Prep. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med 2001;45;912-916.
9. Marino J, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with Autocyte Prep in a small New England Regional Cytology Practice. J Reprod Med 2001;46:353-358.
10. Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG. Dual Sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:41-46.
11. Essex-Sorlie D. Medical biostatistics and epidemiology. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange; 1995.
12. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993;37:115-124.
13. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute workshop in Bethesda, MD, December 12-13, 1988. Diagn Cytopathol 1989;5:331-334.
14. The 1988 Bethsda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.
15. Essex-Sorlie D, Penning CL, Freund GG. Impact of qualified (indeterminate) diagnoses on the accuracy of renal, thyroid, and breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;114:571-575.
16. Larrick JW, Fischer DG, Anderson SJ, et al. Characterization of a human macrophage-like cell line stimulated in vitro: a model of macrophage functions. J Immunol 1980;125:6-12.
17. Deszo EL, Brake DK, Cengel KA, et al. CD45 negatively regulates monocytic cell differentiation by inhibiting PMA-dependent activation and tyrosine phosphorylation of PKCδ. J Biol Chem 2001;276:10212-10217.
18. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-2119.
19. Guerrini L, Sama D, Visani M, et al. Is it possible to define a better ASCUS class in cervicovaginal screening? A review of 187 cases. Acta Cytol 2001;45:532-536.
20. Malik SN, Wilkinson EJ, Drew PA, et al. Do qualifiers of ASCUS distinguish between low- and high-risk patients? Acta Cytol 1999;43:376-380.
21. Sherman ME, Tabbara SO, Scott DR, et al. ASCUS, rule out HSIL: cytologic features, histologic correlates, and human papillomavirus detection. Mod Pathol 1999;12:335-342.
22. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-819.
23. Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Paull G, et al. Type specific persistence of high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) as indicator of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in young women: population based prospective follow up study. Br Med J 2002;325:572-579.
24. Hopman EH, Rozendaal L, Voorhorst FJ, et al. High risk human papillomavirus in women with normal cervical cytology prior to the development of abnormal cytology and colposcopy. BJOG 2000;107:600-604.
25. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histology interpretations. JAMA 2001;285:1500-1505.
26. Meinikow J, Kuppermann M, Birch S, et al. Management of the low-grade abnormal Pap smear: what are women's preferences. J Fam Pract 2002;51:849-855.
27. Wright TC Jr, Cox TT, Massad LS, et al. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129.