Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): A randomised controlled trial

The Lancet Oncology

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 56-64

  Kitchener, Henry C ^a   Blanks, Roger ^c   Dunn, Graham ^b   Gunn, Lionel ^c   Desai, Mina ^d   Albrow, Rebecca ^a   Mather, Jean ^d   Rana, Durgesh N ^d   Cubie, Heather ^e   Moore, Catherine ^e   Legood, Rosa ^f   Gray, Alastair ^g   Moss, Sue ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^d MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^e ROYAL INFIRMARY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^f LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOANALYSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 78650710523     PISSN: 14702045     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70264-3     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch P, Dillner J Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:280-293.
2. Moss S, Gray A, Legood R, Vessey M, Patnick J, Kitchener H Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study. BMJ 2006, 332:83-85.
3. Schiffman M, Solomon D Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003, 127:946-949.
4. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 111:167-177.
5. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening (Technology Appraisal 69) 2003, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London.
6. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:1589-1597.
7. Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 2007, 370:1764-1772.
8. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry K, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006, 119:1095-1101.
9. 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.
10. Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD, et al. The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Am J Clin Pathol 2009, 132:767-775.
11. Broadstock M Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. N Z Med J 2001, 114:311-313.
12. Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess 2005, 9:1-207.
13. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, et al. MAVARIC-a comparison of automation assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess (in press).
14. Harris V, Sandridge A, Black R, Brewster D, Gould A Cancer registration statistics, Scotland 1986-1995 1998, ISD Scotland Publications, Edinburgh.
15. Cervical screening programme, England 2008-09 2009, The Health and Social Care Information Centre, The Health and Social Care Information Centre, London.
16. Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2010, 38:318-326.
17. Nieminen P, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Hakama M, et al. Randomized evaluation trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer: results after 777,000 invitations. J Med Screen 2007, 14:23-28.
18. Cervical Cytology ThinPrep Imager (TIS) Feasibility Study-Report from the Feasibility Sub Group to Cervical Cytology Review Group Scottish Cervical Cytology Review Group Feasibility Sub Group, (accessed Aug 30, 2010). http://www.pathologyscotland.org/download/cervical_cytology_laboratory_provision/feasibility0911.pdf.