The Becton Dickinson focalpoint GS imaging system: Clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 132, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 767-775

  Wilbur, David C ^a   Black Schaffer, W Stephen ^a   Luff, Ronald D ^b   Abraham, Kurian P ^b   Kemper, Cynthia ^c   Molina, James T ^d   Tench, William D ^e  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b QUEST DIAGNOSTICS NICHOLS INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c PC   (United States)

^d Cyto Laboratories   (United States)

^e Palomar Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Computer assisted screening; Cytology imaging system

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; IMAGING SYSTEM; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRECANCER; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 70449707654     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP8VE7AWBZCVQT     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Patten SF Jr, Lee JSJ, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears, I: prospective intended use study. Cancer. 1997;81:337-342. (Pubitemid 28283508)
2. Patten SF Jr, Lee JSJ, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears, II: prospective and archival sensitivity studies. Cancer. 1997;81:343-347. (Pubitemid 28283509)
3. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Proposed method for evaluating secondary screening (rescreening) instruments for gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;111:590-593.
4. Taylor J, Bartels PH, Bibbo M, et al. Automated hierarchic decision structures for multiple category cell classification by TICAS. Acta Cytol. 1978;22:261-267. (Pubitemid 9051506)
5. Koss LG, Lin E, Schreiber K, et al. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for the quality control of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:220-229. (Pubitemid 24061452)
6. Wertlake P. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:11-17. (Pubitemid 29065982)
7. Fetterman B, Pawlick G, Koo H, et al. Determining the utility and effectiveness of the Neopath AutoPap 300 QC System used routinely. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:13-22. (Pubitemid 29071870)
8. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, et al. The AutoPap System for primary screening in cervical cytology: comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:214-220. (Pubitemid 28086797)
9. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, et al. Detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and tumors using the AutoPap System: results of a primary screening clinical trial. Cancer. 1999;87:354-358.
10. Bibbo M, Hawthorne C. Performance of the Autopap primary screening system at Jefferson University Hospital. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:27-29. (Pubitemid 29071872)
11. Walts AE, Thomas P. Correlation of manual screening and automated (AutoPap 300) analysis of conventional cervicovaginal smears with HPV typing using Digene HC II assay. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29:256-261. (Pubitemid 37351941)
12. Orlassino R, Fabbrini T, Gallo C, et al. The use of a computerized system in the reading of cytological cervicovaginal smears during programming of regional screening (one year of experience using the Autopap system) [in Italian]. Pathologica. 2005;97:78-83. (Pubitemid 41136513)
13. Bulgaresi B, Cariaggi MP, Troni GM, et al. Quality control of the AutoPap screening system employed as a primary screening device: rapid review of smears coded as no further review. Tumori. 2006;92:276-278.
14. Troni GM, Cariaggi MP, Bulgaresi B, et al. Reliability of sparing Papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as no further review at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening: survey of 30,658 cases with follow-up cytological screening. Cancer. 2007;111:93-98.
15. Rego M, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint "no further review" population: false negative performance as determined by "high risk" rescreening [abstract]. Cancer. 2006;108(suppl):366.
16. FocalPoint Slide Profiler [package insert]. Burlington, NC: TriPath Imaging. Document No. 779-04194-02rC. http://www.bd.com/tripath/downloads/msds- pi/focalpoint/focalpoint-pi.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2009.
17. Lee JSJ, Kuan L, Oh S, et al. A feasibility study of the AutoPap System location-guided screening. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:221-226. (Pubitemid 28086798)
18. Huang TW, Lin TSM, Lee JSJ. Sensitivity studies of AutoPap system location-guided screening of cervical-vaginal cytologic smears. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:363-368.
19. Chang AR, Lin WF, Chang A, et al. Can technology expedite the cervical cancer screening process? a Hong Kong experience utilizing the AutoPap primary screening system with location-guided screening capability. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:437-443. (Pubitemid 34226080)
20. 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.
21. Vassilakos P, Carrel S, Petignat P, et al. Use of automated primary screening on liquid-based, thin-layer preparations. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:291-295. (Pubitemid 34625159)
22. Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:107-110.
23. Nanji SS, Eichhorn JH, Crothers BA, et al. Determining the effective cervical cytology triage point using an automated Internet-based telecytology system with hierarchical image review [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(suppl);67A.
24. Solomon D, Nayar R, eds. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2004.
25. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1998.
26. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dzuira B, et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123:281-287. (Pubitemid 40194092)
27. ThinPrep Imaging System [package insert]. Marlborough, MA: Cytyc; 2005. Part No. 86093-87001 Rev D.00.
28. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests: measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001;93:106-110.
29. Chacho MS, Mattie ME, Schwartz PE. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison. Cancer. 2003;99:135-140. (Pubitemid 36713632)
30. Clark SB, Dawson AE. Invasive squamous-cell carcinomas in ThinPrep specimens: diagnostic clues in the cellular pattern. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;26:1-4.
31. Schiffman M. Integration of human papillomavirus vaccination, cytology, and human papillomavirus testing. Cancer. 2007;111:145-153. (Pubitemid 46982691)
32. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM. Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature. 2005;435:439-440.