Implementation of focalpoint GS location-guided imaging system

Cancer Cytopathology

Volumn 120, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 126-133

  Levi, Angelique W ^a   Chhieng, David C ^a   Schofield, Kevin ^a   Kowalski, Diane ^a   Harigopal, Malini ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Gynecologic cytology; Imaging system; Liquid based preparation; Location guided; Squamous intraepithelial lesion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANDIDIASIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; IMAGING SYSTEM; LABORATORY TEST; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING TEST; VAGINITIS; VIRUS DETECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PROGNOSIS; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; NEOPLASMS, SQUAMOUS CELL; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PROGNOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84861697152     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19346638     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncy.20187     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:221-226.
2. Alasio LM, Alphandery C, Grassi P, Ruggeri M, De Palo G, Pilotti S. Performance of the AutoPap Primary Screening System in the detection of high-risk cases in cervicovaginal smears. Acta Cytol. 2001;45:704-708.
3. Chang AR, Lin WF, Chang A, Chong KS. Can technology expedite the cervical cancer screening process? A Hong Kong experience using the AutoPap primary screening system with location-guided screening capability. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117:437-443.
4. Confortini M, Bonardi L, Bulgaresi P, et al. A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap screening system as a primary screening and location-guided rescreening device. Cancer. 2003;99:129-134.
5. 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.
6. Ronco G, Vineis C, Montanari G, et al. Impact of the AutoPap (currently Focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis. Cancer. 2003;99:83-88.
7. 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.
8. Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M, et al. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS system performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 2007;51:865-871.
9. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G, et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12: 56-64.
10. 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.
11. Duby JM, DiFurio MJ. Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;117:264-270.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Thrall MJ, Russell DK, Bonfiglio TA, Hoda RS. Use of the ThinPrep Imaging System does not alter the frequency of interpreting Papanicolaou tests as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Cytojournal. 2008;5:10.
15. 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.
16. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;104:134-138.
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.
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;52:575-578.
19. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, et al. A threearmed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:96-102.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Zuna RE, Allen RA, Moore WE, Lu Y, Mattu R, Dunn ST. Distribution of HPV genotypes in 282 women with cervical lesions: evidence for three categories of intraepithelial lesions based on morphology and HPV type. Mod Pathol. 2007;20:167-174.
25. Tworek JA, Jones BA, Raab S, Clary KM, Walsh MK. The value of monitoring human papillomavirus DNA results for Papanicolaou tests diagnosed as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 68 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:1525-1531.
26. Ko V, Nanji S, Tambouret RH, Wilbur DC. Testing for HPV as an objective measure for quality assurance in gynecologic cytology: positive rates in equivocal and abnormal specimens and comparison with the ASCUS to SIL ratio. Cancer. 2007;111:67-73.
27. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ, Taylor DD. AutoPap system detection of infections and benign cellular changes: results from primary screener clinical trials. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;21:355-358.
28. 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.
29. Friedlander MA, Rudomina D, Lin O. Effectiveness of the Thin Prep Imaging System in the detection of adenocarcinoma of the gynecologic system. Cancer. 2008;114:7-12.
30. Jayamohan Y, Karabakhtsian RG, Banks HW, Davey DD. Accuracy of Thinprep Imaging System in detecting atypical glandular cells. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37:479-482.
31. Wong R, et al. Application of Lean principles to improve turn around time in gynecologic cytology laboratory. Mod Pathol. 2011(Suppl).