MAVARIC - A comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: A randomised controlled trial

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 1-176

  Kitchener, H C ^a   Blanks, R ^b   Cubie, H ^c   Desai, M ^d   Dunn, G ^a   Legood, R ^e,f   Gray, A ^f   Sadique, Z ^e   Moss, S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL INFIRMARY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^d MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

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

^f UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASS SCREENING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL DEVICE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SLIDE PROFILER; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VIRUS IDENTIFICATION; WART VIRUS; ALPHAPAPILLOMAVIRUS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; INSTRUMENTATION; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LABORATORY AUTOMATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY;

ADULT; ALPHAPAPILLOMAVIRUS; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; COLPOSCOPY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATE MEDICINE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 79955739887     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta15030     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews F. The cervical cancer screening epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:8.
2. National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Cervical Screening Programme Annual Review 2008. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2008.
3. National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes. HPV Sentinel Sites implementation project. 2008. URL: www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/hpv-sentinel-sites.html (accessed on 22 December 2009).
4. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2000.
5. NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Laboratory Organisation: A Guide For Laboratories Participating in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2003.
6. The Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme, England 2008-09. London: The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2009.
7. The Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme, England 2007-08. London: The Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2008.
8. Department of Health. Cancer Reform Strategy. London: Department of Health; 2007.
9. Lord Carter of Coles. Report of the Review of NHS Pathology Services in England. London: Department of Health; 2006.
10. Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening. Extraordinary meeting to re-examine current policy on cervical screening for women aged 20-24 years taking account of any new evidence and make recommendations to the National Cancer Director and Ministers held on 19 May 2009. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2009.
11. Department of Health. New Cervical Cancer campaign. 2009. URL: www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-1.nsf/0/9B54517FC34EBBE8802575DF00506FF2 (accessed on 25 June 2009).
12. Moss SM, Gray A, Marteau T, Legood R, Henstock E, Maissi E. Evaluation of HPV/LBC Cervical Screening Pilot Studies - Report to the Department of Health (revised October 2004). Sutton: Institute of Cancer Research; 2004.
13. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening (Technology Appraisal 69). London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2003.
14. 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(13).
15. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. N Z Health Technol Assess Rep 2000;3(1).
16. Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T, Duhig J, Hall J, Lee C, et al. Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed highgrade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:318-26.
17. Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD, Abraham KP, Kemper C, Molina JT, 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;132:767-75.
18. 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;52:575-8.
19. Papillo JL, St John TL, Leiman G. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: clinical experience in a low risk screening population. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:155-60.
20. Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M, D'Amico MR, Di Dato E, Gustinucci D, et al. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS system performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol 2007;51:865-71.
21. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:134-8.
22. Troni MG, Cariaggi MP, Bulgaresi P, Houssami N, Ciatto S. 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 Cytopathol 2007;111:93-8.
23. Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Implementation of the ThinPrep® Imaging System in a high-volume metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:213-17.
24. Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31.
25. 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;35:348-52.
26. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, Hyne SG, Greenberg M, Clarke JM, et al. A Three- Armed Trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:96-102.
27. Dziura B, Quinn S, Richards K. Performance of an Imaging System vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 2006;50:309-11.
28. Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Troni MG, Ciatto S. Quality control of the AutoPap screening system employed as a primary screening device: Rapid review of the smears coded as no further review. Tumori 2006;92:276-8.
29. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, Galup L, Darragh T, Rahentulla A, et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281-7.
30. Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:107-10.
31. Stevens MW, Milne AJ, Parkinson IH, Nespolon WW, Fazzalari NL, Arora N, et al. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in the evaluation of cervical cytology smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:94-9.
32. Ronco G, Vineis C, Montanari G, Orlassino R, Parisio F, Arnaud S, et al. Impact of the AutoPap (currently FocalPoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol 2003;99:83-8.
33. Confortini M, Bonardi L, Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Cecchini S, Ciatto S, et al. A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap Screening System as a primary screening and location guided rescreening device. Cancer Cytopathol 2003;99:129-34.
34. 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.
35. Vassilakos P, Carrel S, Petignat P, Boulvain M, Campana A. Use of automated primary screening on liquid-based, thin-layer preparations. Acta Cytol 2002;46:291-5.
36. Hologic. Scottish ThinPrep Imager Feasibility Study. Insight: Hologic Diagnostic News, Crawley, UK, 2009 (Spring 2009):12-13.
37. Scottish Cervical Cytology Review Group Feasibility Sub Group. Cervical Cytology ThinPrep Imager (TIS) Feasibility Study - Report from the Feasibility Sub Group to Cervical Cytology Review Group. Edinburgh: Scottish Pathology Network; 2009.
38. Walboomers J, Jacobs M, Manos M, Bosch F, Kummer J, Shah K, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12-19.
39. Schiffman M, Clifford G, Buonaguro FM. Classifictaion of weakly carcinogenic human papillomavirus types: addressing the limits of epidemiology at the borderline. Infect Agent Cancer 2009;4:8.
40. Clifford G, Smith J, Plummer M, Munoz N, Franceschi S. Human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancer worldwide: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2003;88:63-7.
41. The Future II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1915-27.
42. Paavonen J, Naud P, Salmeron J, Wheeler C, Chow, S.-N., Apter D, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV) - 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. Lancet 2009;374:301-14.
43. Schiffman M, Solomon D. Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arc Pathol Lad Med 2003;127:946-9.
44. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, Hulman G, Kitchener H, Luesley D, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003;362:1871-6.
45. Wright J, Rader J, Davila R, Powell M, Mutch D, Gao F, et al. Human papillomavirus triage for young women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:822-9.
46. 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;332:83-5.
47. Kitchener HC, Walker PG, Nelson L, Hadwin R, Patnick J, Anthony GB, et al. HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in the follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 2008;115:1001-7.
48. Bulkmans N, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade F, Boeke A, Bulk S, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5 year follow-up of a randomaised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 2007;370:1764-72.
49. Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Dowie R, Stoykova B, Sargent A, Roberts C, et al. ARTISTIC: A randomised trial of HPV testing in primary cervical screening. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(51).
50. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, Strand A, Wadell G, Elfgren K, et al. Human papillomavirusand papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1589-97.
51. Sargent A, Bailey A, Wheeler P, Kitchener H, Corbitt G, Peto J. A comparison of the Digene Hybrid Capture 2 assay and the Roche Amplicor Human Papillomavirus (HPV) test for the detection of 'high-risk' HPV genotypes in DNA extracts from liquid-based cytology samples collected from women whose cytology was graded 'borderline'. Proceedings of the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference, 2004, Mexico City, Mexico, abstract no. 143.
52. Cubie HA, Cuschieri KS, Zmijewski FM, Moore C. Evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of the Roche Amplicor HPV test, the Roche prototype line blot assay and Digene Hybrid Capture 2 test for the detection of HPV in archived cervical samples with borderline cytology. Proceedings of the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference, 2004, Mexico City, Mexico, abstract no. 120.
53. Cuschieri KS, Seagar AL, Moore C, Gilkison G, Kornegay J, Cubie HA. Development of an automated extraction procedure for detection of human Papillomavirus DNA in liquid based cytology samples. J Virol Methods 2003;107:7.
54. Sargent A, Bailey A, Turner A, Almonte M, Gilham C, Baysson H, et al. Optimal Cut-off for Positive Hybrid Capture 2 Test for the detection of Human Papillomavirus: data from the ARTISTIC trial. J Clin Microbiol 2010;48:554-8.
55. Evans DM, Hudson EA, Brown CL, Boddington MM, Hughes HE, Mackenzie EF, et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the working party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol 1986;39:933-44.
56. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-19.
57. 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;111:167-77.
58. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care. 2007 URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2007/uc2007.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2009).
59. Department of Health. Payment by results 2008/09. 2008. URL: www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Financeandplanning/NHSFinancia lReforms/index.htm (accessed on 26 June 2009).
60. Martin-Hirsch P, Rash B, Martin A, Standaert B. Management of women with abnormal cervical cytology: treatment patterns and associated costs in England and Wales. BJOG 2007;114:408-15.
61. Legood R, Gray AJW, Moss S. Lifetime effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ 2006;332:79-85.
62. Canfell K, Barnabas R, Patnick J, Beral V. The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study. Br J Cancer 2004;91:530-6.
63. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Human Papillomavirus triage test for women with possible or definite low-grade squamous intrepithelial lesions. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2009.
64. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Automation assisted and liquid based cytology for cervical cancer screening. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2009.
65. Office For National Statistics. Interim life tables for England 2005-2007 (Females). 2009. URL: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Interim_Life/ILTEng0608 Reg.xls'2005-07'!A1 (accessed on 14 December 2009).
66. Paraskevaidis E, Arbyn M, Sotiriadis A, Diakomanolis E, Martin-Hirsch P, Koliopoulos G, et al. The role of HPV DNA testing in the follow-up period after treatment for CIN: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treat Rev 2004;30:205-11.
67. Myers ER, Green S, Lipkus I. Patient preferences for health states related to HPV infection: Visual analogue scales vs. time trade-off elicitation. Proceedings of the 21st International Papillomavirus Conference, 2004, Mexico City, Mexico, abstract no. 390.2.
68. Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, Fryback DG. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med Care 1998;36:778-92.
69. Stratton KR, Durch JS. Appendix 11: human papillomavirus. In Stratton KR, Durch JS, Lawrence RS, editors. Vaccines for the 21st century: A tool for decision making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000. pp. 213-22.
70. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer incidence in five continents vol. VIII. 2002. URL: www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/epi/sp155/ci5v8-cover.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2009).
71. Office For National Statistics. Cancer registrations in England, 2006. 2008. URL: www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/2006cancerfirstrelease.xls (accessed on 14 December 2009).
72. Office For National Statistics. Mortality statistics: Cause - review of the Registrar General on deaths by cause, sex and age in England and Wales 2005. London: Office for National Statistics; 2006.
73. Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Wheeler P, Desai M, Gilham C, Bailey A, et al. HPV testing in routine cervical screening: cross sectional data from the ARTISTIC trial. Br J Cancer 2006;95:56-61.
74. Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, O'Brien BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastrosophagael reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002;22:290-308.
75. British Society for Clinical Cytology. Recommended code of practice for laboratories participating in the UK cervical cancer screening programmes. London: British Society for Clinical Cytology; 2009.
76. HM Treasury. GDP Deflator Figures. 2007. URL: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/gdp_deflators/data_gdp_in dex.cfm (accessed on 14 December 2009).
77. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2006. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury; 2006.
78. NHS Employers. Pay Circular (A for C) 1/2006. Pay and Conditions for NHS staff covered by the Agenda for Change agreement. London: NHS Employers; 2006.
79. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The guidelines manual 2009. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009.
80. Insinga RP, Glass AG, Myers ER, Rush BB. Abnormal outcomes following cervical cancer screening: event duration and health utility loss. Med Decis Making 2007;27:414-22.
81. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, Jacobson D, Yi B, Hwang YT, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 2002;287:2372-81.
82. Sanders GD, Taira AV. Cost effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:37-48.
83. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:604-15.
84. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternate triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002;287:2382-90.
85. Robertson JH, Woodend BE, Crozier EH, Hutchinson J. Risk of cervical smear associated with mild dyskaryosis. BMJ 1988;297:18-21.
86. Whynes DK, Woolley C, Philips Z. Management of low-grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: which method do women prefer? Cytopathology 2008;19:355-62.
87. Philips Z, Avis M, Whynes DK. Introducing HPV triage into the English cervical cancer screening program: consequences for participation. Women Health 2006;43:17-34.
88. Poljak M, Fujs K, Seme K, Kocjan BJ, Vrtacnik-Bokal E. Retrospective and prospective evaluation of the Amplicor HPV test for detection of 13 high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes on 862 clincal samples. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Panonica Adriat 2005;14:147-52.
89. Hardie A, Moore C, Patnick J, Cuschieri K, Graham C, Beadling C, et al. High-risk HPV detection in specimens collected in SurePath preservative fluid: comparison of ambient and refrigerated storage. Cytopathology 2009;20:235-41.
90. Bouvard V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, et al. A review of human carcinogens - Part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:321-2.
91. Poljak M, Marin IJ, Seme K, Vince A. Hybrid Capture II HPV Test detects at least 15 human papillomavirus genotypes not included in its current high-risk probe cocktail. J Clin Virol 2002;25(Suppl. 3):S89-97.
92. Halfon P, Trepo E, Antoniotti G, Bernot C, Cart-Lamy P, Khiri H, et al. Prospective evaluation of the Hybrid Capture 2 and AMPLICOR human papillomavirus (HPV) tests for detection of 13 high-risk HPV genotypes in atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:313-16.
93. Castle PE, Solomon D, Wheeler CM, Gravitt PE, Wacholder S, Schiffman M. Human papillomavirus genotype specificity of hybrid capture 2. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2595-604.
94. Poljak M, Kocjan BJ, Kovanda A, Lunar MM, Lepej SZ, Planinic A, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype specificity of hybrid capture 2 low-risk probe cocktail. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:2611-15.