Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 123, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 281-287

  Biscotti, Charles V ^a   Dawson, Andrea E ^a   Dziura, Bruce ^b   Galup, Luis ^c   Darragh, Teresa ^d   Rahemtulla, Amir ^e   Wills Frank, Lisa ^f  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b BAYSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c South Bend Medical Foundation   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e Union Hospital   (United States)

^f Clinical Pathology Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Automated cytology; Cervical screening; ThinPrep Pap Test

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; AUTOMATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; HIGH GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

EID: 13244283148     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AGB1MJ9H5N43MEGX     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Davey DD, Woodhouse S, Styer P, et al. Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:672-681.
2. Birdsong GG. Automated screening of cervical cytology specimens. Hum Pathol. 1996;27:468-481.
3. 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. AmJ Clin Pathol. 2002;118:399-407.
4. Allen KA. Cytologist shortage harms patient health. ASCT News. 2002;22:33-35.
5. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Note for Terminology and Specimen Inadequacy. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1994.
6. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1981.
7. Hawkins DM, Garrett JA, Stephenson B. Some issues of diagnostic tests using an imperfect gold standard. Stat Med. 2001;20:1987-2001.
8. Hutchinson M, Lapen D, Wemeke S, et al. Cancer detection with the ThinPrep Imaging System [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:858.
9. Nasiell K, Roger V, Nasiell M. Behavior of mild cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;67:665-669.
10. Stoler MH. Human papillomaviruses and cervical neoplasia: a model for carcinogenesis. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000;19:16-28.
11. DeMay RM. Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1997;121:229-238.
12. Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, et al. ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus Conference: 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Cervical Cytological Abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287:2120-2129.
13. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Proposed guidelines for primary screening instruments for gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol, 1998;109:10-15.
14. Doornewaard H, van der Schouw YT, van der Graaf Y, et al. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. Mod Pathol. 1999;12:995-1000.
15. Bishop JW, Kaufman RH, Taylor DA. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic applications. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:34-38.
16. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Cancer. 1998;84:273-280.
17. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data [ThinPrep Imaging System]. Available at: http://wwwfda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/ P020002b.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2004.
18. Stoler MH. Advances in cervical screening technology. Mod Pathol. 2000;13:275-284.
19. Montz FJ, Farber FL, Bristow RE, et al. Impact of increasing Papanicolaou test sensitivity and compliance: a modeled cost and outcomes study. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:781-788.