Utility of the Thin Prep Imaging System ®in the detection of squamous intraepithelial abnormalities on retrospective evaluation: Can we trust the imager?

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 124-127

  Barroeta, Julieta E ^a   Reilly, Mary E ^b   Steinhoff, Margaret M ^b   Lawrence, W Dwayne ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

automated screening; cervical screening; pap test; squamous intraepithelial lesion; Thin Prep Imaging System

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU;

AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84855933890     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.21516     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. 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. (Pubitemid 46835025)
2. 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)
3. Dawson AE,. Can we change the way we screen?: The ThinPrep Imaging System. Cancer 2004; 102: 340-344.
4. 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)
5. Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB,. Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a high-volumen metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007; 35: 213-217. (Pubitemid 46516675)
6. Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E, White S, Mauser N, Dabbs DJ,. Introduction of the Thin Prep Imaging System (TIS): Experience in a high volume academic practice. Cytojournal 2007; 4: 6.
7. Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lin O,. Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System in the detection of adenocarcinoma of the gynecological system. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2008; 114: 7-12. (Pubitemid 351304607)
8. 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. (Pubitemid 43837043)
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: 31-38.
10. Jayamohan Y, Karabakhtsian RG, Banks HW, Davey DD,. Accuracy of ThinPrep Imaging System in detecting atypical glandular cells. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 479-482.
11. Quddus MR, Neves T, Reilly ME, Steinhoff MM, Sung CJ,. Does the ThinPrep Imaging System increase the detection of high-risk HPV-positive ASC-US and AGUS? The Women and Infants Hospital experience with over 200,000 cervical cytology cases. Cytojournal 2009; 6: 15.
12. Duby JM, DiFurio MJ,. Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer Cytopathol 2009; 117: 264-270.
13. Boost T,. A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2009; 37: 661-664.
14. 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)
15. 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. (Pubitemid 351312129)