Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the ThinPrep imaging system leads to significant reductions in screening accuracy

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 118, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 75-82

  Elsheikh, Tarik M ^a   Kirkpatrick, Joseph L ^b   Cooper, MacKenzie K ^b   Johnson, Mary L ^b   Hawkins, Allison P ^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; Papanicolaou smear; Sensitivity; ThinPrep; Workload

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSIS, MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; TIME; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; WORKLOAD;

CLINICAL LABORATORY TECHNIQUES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; QUALITY CONTROL; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 77952573741     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20065     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Allen KA. Cytologist shortage harms patient health. ASCT News. 2002;22:33-35.
2. 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.
3. Cytyc Corporation. Operation Summary and Clinical Information, ThinPrep Imaging System. Patent no. 86093-001 Rev. E00. Marlborough, Mass: Cytyc Corporation; 2006.
4. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:134-138.
5. Schledermann D, Hyldebrandt T, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B. Automated screening versus manual screening: a comparison of the ThinPrep imaging system and manual screening in a time study. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:348-352.
6. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Fischer D, Herbert KD, Renshaw AA. Does the time of day or weekday affect screening accuracy? A correlation study with cytotech workload and abnormal rate detection utilizing the ThinPrep imaging system. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2010;118:41-46.
7. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human falsenegative rate of rescreening Pap tests. Measured in a 2-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001;93:106-110.
8. Practice guidelines for medical laboratory technologists practicing in cytology. College of Medical Technologists of Ontario. Available at: http://www.cmlto.com/quality-assurance/MLT-practice-guidelines/learning/ 10-cyto-gdlne.pdf 2008. Accessed on September 1, 2009.
9. 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;335:31.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Duby JM, Difurio MJ. Implementation of the Thinprep imaging system in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;117:264-270.
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. Dawson AE. Clinical experience with the thinPrep Imager System. Acta Cytol. 2006;50:481-482.
17. 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.
18. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, et al. A 3-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:96-102.
19. Zhang FF, Banks HW, Langford SM, Davey DD. Accuracy of ThinPrep Imaging System in detecting low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007; 131:773-776.
20. Renshaw AA, Dubray-Benstein B, Haja J, Hughes JH. Cytologic features of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in thinprep papanicolaou test slides and conventional smears: comparison of cases that performed poorly with those that performed well in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:23-25.
21. Renshaw AA, Prey MU, Hodes L, Weisson M, Haja J, Moriarty AT. Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in conventional slides: what is the difference between cases that perform well and those that perform poorly? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:733-735.
22. Brimo F, Renshaw AA, Deschenes M, Charbonneau M, Auger M. Improvement in the routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer (Cancer) Cytopathol. 2009;117:311-317.