Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: Clinical experience in a low risk screening population

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 155-160

  Papillo, Jacalyn L ^a   St John, Timothy L ^a   Leiman, Gladwyn ^a,b  

^a FLETCHER ALLEN HEALTH CARE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

Automated screening; Cervical cytology; HPV; ThinPrep Imaging System; ThinPrep Pap test

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SYSTEM; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VIRUS DETECTION; WART VIRUS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 39749157862     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20779     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Operation Summary and Clinical Information, [ThinPrep Imaging System], Cytyc Corporation, Part No. 86093-001 Rev. E00, 2006.
2. Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 2006;50:309-311.
3. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:134-138.
4. Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Implementation of the ThinPrep imaging system in a high-volume metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:213-217.
5. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, Galup L, Darragh T, Rahemtulla A, Wills-Frank L. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281-287.
6. Qureshi MN, Ringer PJ. Impact of the ThinPrep imaging system on detection rates of cervical abnormalities (abstr). Acta Cytol 2004;48:700-701.
7. Miller FS, Nagel L, Kenny-Moynihan M. Comparison of manual and imaging-directed screening of the ThinPrep Pap test in a large metropolitan cytology practice (abstr). Acta Cytol 2004;48:701-702.
8. Iverson DK. Impact of the ThinPrep imaging system on the detection of cervical abnormalities (abstr). Acta Cytol 2004;48:702-703.
9. Elishaev E, Saad R, Crane R, Chivukula M, Mauser N, Dabbs D. Automated imaging - The impact on cervical Pap test screening: A single institution experience (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2005;105:389-390.
10. Travers H, DeHaan S, Severson S. Impact on detection of cytologic abnormality rates after implementation of the ThinPrep imaging system at a medium volume privately owned reference laboratory (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:363-364.
11. Ramey L. Increased disease detection: A comparison between ThinPrep imaging system review and manual review of ThinPrep Pap tests (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:379-380.
12. Geyer SJ, Brewerton B, Pratt C, Campana C. Imaging-directed cytology increases ASCUS detection rate, but not hrHPV detection rate (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2005;105:364-365.
13. Ashfaq R, West AM, Saboorian MH. Age stratified ASC-US high risk HPV positivity: Post implementation correlation of the ThinPrep imaging system with HPV findings (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:400.
14. Linder J, Derzko A, Sneider N. Increased detection of cervical abnormality with the ThinPrep imaging system: A comparative analysis of over one million Pap tests (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:391.
15. Sabo D, Shorie J, Dawson AE. ThinPrep imaging system performance in the diagnosis of uncommon malignancies (abstr). Acta Cytol 2004;48:664.
16. Sabo D, Shorie J, Biscotti C. Detection of adenocarcinoma using the ThinPrep imaging system (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2005;105:374-375.
17. Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lin O, Gatscha RM. ThinPrep imaging system effectiveness in the detection of glandular abnormalities (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:361-362.
18. Sabo D, Shorie J, Biscotti C. Detection of endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ using the ThinPrep imaging system (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:387.
19. Miller FS, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Comparison of quality control discrepancies in LSIL or above: Imaged versus non-imaged slides (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2005;105:353.
20. Kindelberger D, Cibas E. The false-negative rate of the ThinPrep imaging system compares favourably with manual screening (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2005;105:366.
21. Chase J. A large reference Lab's experience with the ThinPrep imaging system (abstr). Cancer Cytopathol 2006;108:402.
22. Bolger N, Heffron C, Regan I, Sweeney M, Kinsella S, McKeown M, Creighton G, Russell J, O'Leary J. Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system. Acta Cytol 2006;50:483-491.
23. Schiedermann D, Hyldebrandt T, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B. Automated screening versus manual screening in a time study. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:348-352.
24. Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan S, Richards A, Farnsworth A. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: Prospective study. Br Med J 2007;335:28.
25. Roberts J, Thurloe J, Bowditch R, Hyne S, Greenberg M, Clarke J, Biro C. A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep imaging system. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:96-102.
26. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh A, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2001;954-962.