Does the time of day or weekday affect screening accuracy? A pilot correlation study with cytotechnologist workload and abnormal rate detection using the ThinPrep Imaging System

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 118, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 41-46

  Elsheikh, Tarik M ^a   Kirkpatrick, Joseph L ^b   Fischer, Dan ^b   Herbert, Kristi D ^b   Renshaw, Andrew A ^c  

^a BALL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b PA Labs Inc   (United States)

^c BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Cytopathology; Gynecologic cytology; Gynecology; Imaging system; Location guided screening; Pap smear; Sensitivity; ThinPrep; Workload

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MASS SCREENING; PILOT STUDY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; STANDARD; TIME; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; WORKLOAD;

CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; PILOT PROJECTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 77950510855     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20060     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123:281-287.
2. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (ThinPrep Imaging System). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020002b.pdf. Accessed November 30, 2004.
3. Operation Summary And Clinical Information (ThinPrep Imaging System). Cytyc corporation, Part No. 86093-001 Rev. E00, 2006.
4. Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M. Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer. 2008;114:149-154.
5. Djemli A, Khetani K, Auger M. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy. Cancer. 2006;108:21-26.
6. Djemli A, Khetani K, Case BW, Auger M. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameters with their performance in rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears. Cancer. 2006; 108:306-310.
7. Smith J, Nicholas D, Boyd K, Deacon-Smith R. Rapid prescreening: a validated quality assurance measure in cervical cytology. Cytopathology. 2003;14:275-280.
8. Tavares SB, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology. Cancer. 2008;114:165-170.
9. Tavares SB, de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme. Cytopathology. 2008;19:254-259.
10. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests. Measured in a 2-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001;93:106-110.
11. College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of Ontario. MLT Practice Guidelines and Learning Modules. Available at: http://www.cmlto.com/quality- assurance/MLT-practice-guidelines/default.asp?load=cytotechnologists Accessed May 2009.
12. Thompson S, Mason E. How many slides? Documented cytotechnologist workload. Laboratory Medicine. 2004;35: 742-744.
13. Pantanowitz L, Hornish M, Goulart RA. Informatics applied to cytology. Cytojournal. 2008;5:16.
14. Cibas ES, Zou KH, Crum CP, Kuo F. Using the rate of positive high-risk HPV test results for ASC-US together with the ASC-US/SIL ratio in evaluating the performance of cytopathologists. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;129:97-101.
15. Davey E, Irwig L, Macaskill P, et al. Cervical cytology reading times: a comparison between ThinPrep Imager and conventional methods. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:550-554.
16. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104: 134-138.
17. Pacheco MC, Conley RC, Pennington DW, Bishop JW. Concordance between original screening and final diagnosis using imager vs. manual screen of cervical liquid-based cytology slides. Acta Cytol. 2008;52:575-578.
18. Papillo JL, St John TL, Leiman G. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: clinical experience in a low risk screening population. Diagn Cytopathol. 2008;36:155-160.