Can we change the way we screen?: The ThinPrep imaging system® - Clinical trial data and early experience

Cancer

Volumn 102, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 340-344

  Dawson, Andrea E ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CELL SELECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFERENCE PAPER; CYTOLOGY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA;

CARCINOMA; CLINICAL TRIALS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MICROTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 10244263437     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20721     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Adami H-O, Ponten J, Sparen P, et al. Survival trend after invasive cervical cancer diagnosis in Sweden before and after cytologic screening. 1960-1984. Cancer. 1994;73:140-147.
2. Brinton LA, Hamman RF, Huggins GR, et al. Sexual and reproductive risk factors for invasive squamous cell cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987;79:23-30.
3. Janerick DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz P, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:791-794.
4. Doornewaard H, van der Schow YT, van de Graaf Y, et al. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. Mod Pathol. 1999;12:995-1000.
5. Birdsong GG. Automated screening of cervical cytology specimens. Hum Pathol. 1996;27:468-481.
6. Stoler M. Advances in cervical screening technology. Mod Pathol. 2000;13:275-284.
7. Zahniser DJ, Oud PS, Raaijmakers MC, et al. BioPEPR: a system for automatic prescreening of cervical smears. J Histochem Cytochem. 1979;27:635-641.
8. Demay RM. Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:229-238.
9. Abulafiia O, Pezzulo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of Thin-Prep liquid based cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;90:137-144.
10. Allen K. Cytologist shortage harms patient health. ASCT News. 2002;XXII(4):33-35.
11. ThinPrep Imaging System. Summary of safety and effectiveness data. Boxbourough, MA: Cytyc Corporation, 2002. Available from URL: http//www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020002b.pdf
12. Lapen D, Mui K, Smith R, Linder J. Validation of the Thin-Prep stain. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:854.
13. Biscotti CB, Dawson AE, Dziura B, et al. Automated assisted primary screening utilizing the ThinPrep Imaging System. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:822.
14. Mckee G, Cibas ES, Rahemtualla A, et al. False negative fraction and the ThinPrep Imaging System™. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:823.
15. Lapen D, Jameison E, Linder J. Specimen adequacy and its assessment with the ThinPrep Imaging System. Acta Cytol. 2004;47:859.
16. Hutchinson M, Lapen D, Werneke S, et al. Cancer detection with the ThinPrep Imaging System. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:858.
17. Lapen D, Ludlow E, Comeau C, Linder J. Inter- and intra-instrument reproducibility of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:859.