Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep imaging system for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 318-326

  Halford, J A ^a   Batty, T ^a   Boost, T ^a   Duhig, J ^a   Hall, J ^a   Lee, C ^a   Walker, K ^a  

^a Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; High grade squamous abnormalities; ThinPrep imaging system

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HEALTH CARE PRACTICE; HIGH GRADE SQUAMOUS LESION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SYSTEM; LABORATORY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SMEAR; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

AUSTRALIA; BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; METAPHASE; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 77951740961     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.21199     Document Type: Article

References (19)

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. (Pubitemid 40194092)
2. Dziura B, Quinn S. 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. (Pubitemid 43837043)
3. Bolger N, Heffron C, Regan I, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system. Acta Cytol 2006;50:483-491. (Pubitemid 44449612)
4. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynaecol Oncol 2007;104:134-138. (Pubitemid 46054112)
5. 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.
6. Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E, White S, Mauser N, Dabbs DJ. Introduction of the ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS): Experience in a high volume academic practice. CytoJournal 2007;4:6. (Pubitemid 46303895)
7. Papillo JL, St. John TL. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: Clinical experience in a low risk screening population. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:155-160.
8. Davey E, D'assuncao J, Irwig L, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: Prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:1-2.
9. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, et al. A three-armed trial of the Thinprep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:96-102. (Pubitemid 46247140)
10. National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council Performance measures for Australian laboratories reporting cervical cytology. Canberra, Australia: National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council, Australian Government Department of Health and Aging; 2006.
11. Boost T. A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:661-664.
12. Sherman ME, Kelly D. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative papanicolaou smears: Screening failures or rapid progression? Mod Pathol 1992;5:337-342.
13. Bosch MMC, Rietveld-Scheffers PEM, Boon ME. Characteristics of false-negative smears tested in the normal screening situation. Acta Cytol 1992;36:711-716.
14. Gay JD, Donaldson LD, Goellner JR. False-negative results in cervical cytologic studies. Acta Cytol 1985;29:1043-1046.
15. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995;6:368-375. (Pubitemid 26021207)
16. Thinprep 2000 operator's manual: Reproducing a ThinPrep Pap test vial following an unsatisfactory result. Hologic Pty Ltd, Marlborough, MA, Section F, Chapter 4, Revision. D, p 4.6-4.8.
17. 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. (Pubitemid 47435617)
18. Franco EL, Cuzick J, Hildesheim A, De Sanjose S. Issues in cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Vaccine 2006; 24:S3171-S3177.
19. Stock T, Franklin L. The implementation of the ThinPrep MultiCyte System in a regional cytology laboratory. Poster presentation, Australian Society of Cytology Annual Business and Scientific Meeting, Sydney, 2008.