Prospective parallel randomized trial of the multicyte™ thinprep® imaging system: The scottish experience

Cytopathology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 235-245

  Palmer, T J ^a   Nicoll, S M ^b   Mckean, M E ^c   Park, A J ^b   Bishop, D ^b   Baker, L ^b   Imrie, J E A ^d  

^a RAIGMORE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^c ABERDEEN ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^d MONKLANDS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Cervical screening; Computer assisted screening; Liquid based cytology; Predictive values; Productivity; Randomized trial; ThinPrep Imaging System

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ACCURACY; CERVICAL SCREENING; COMPUTER-ASSISTED SCREENING; LIQUID-BASED CYTOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUES; PRODUCTIVITY; RANDOMIZED TRIAL; THINPREP® IMAGING SYSTEM;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; SCOTLAND; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 84880657757     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: 13652303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2012.00982.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. ISDScotland. Cervical Cancer Incidence 1975-2009. http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Cancer/Publications/2011-08-30/cervical_cancer_screening_change_in_incidence.xls (accessed 18th October 2010).
2. Cuschieri K, Brewster DH, Williams AR et al. Distribution of HPV types associated with cervical cancers in Scotland and implications for the impact of HPV vaccines. Br J Cancer 2010;102:930-2.
3. Wiegmann D, McCarley JS, Kramer AF, Wickens CD. Age and automation interact to influence performance of a simulated luggage screening task. Aviat Space Environ Med 2006;77:825-31.
4. 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.
5. 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;50:309-11.
6. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:134-8.
7. Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB. Implementation of the ThinPrep imaging system in a high-volume metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:213-7.
8. ThinPrep® Imager Feasibility Group. Cervical Cytology Thinprep Imager® (TIS) Feasibility Study: Report from the Feasibility Sub Group to Cervical Cytology Review Group. Available from: http://www.pathologyscotland.org/download/cervical_cytology_laboratory_provision/feasibility0911.pdf (accessed 7th October 2010).
9. NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology. Johnson J, Patnick J. eds. NHSCSP Publication No 1, May 2000. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/csp01.pdf (accessed 7th October 2010).
10. Wright PK, Marshall J, Desai M. Comparison of Surepath® and ThinPrep® liquid-based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators. Cytopathology 2010;21:374-8.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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;38:318-26.
14. Bolger N, Heffron C, Regan I et al. Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system. Acta Cytol 2006;50:483-91.
15. Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC et al. A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:96-102.
16. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281-7.
17. Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E et al. Introduction of the Thin Prep Imaging System (TIS): experience in a high volume academic practice. Cytojournal 2007;4:6.
18. Boost T. A Comparison of Screening Times Between the ThinPrep Imager and Conventional Cytology. Diagnostic Cytopathol 2009;37:661-4.
19. Thrall MJ, Russell DK, Bonfiglio TA, Hoda RD. 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.
20. 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;131:773-6.
21. TOMBOLA Group. Cytological surveillance compared with immediate referral for colposcopy in management of women with low grade cervical abnormalities: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2009;339:b2546. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2546.
22. Zhao C, Elishaev E, Yuan K-H, Austin RM. Very low human papillomavirus DNA prevalence in mature women with negative computer-imaged liquid-based pap tests. Cancer 2007;111:292-7.
23. Bansal M, Austin RM, Zhao C. High-risk HPV DNA detected in less than 2% of over 25, 000 cytology negative imaged liquid-based Pap test samples from women 30 and older. Gynecol Oncol 2009;115:257-61.
24. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading in cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;12:56-64.
25. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Solomon D. Evidence for Frequent Regression of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia-Grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:18-25.
26. Rich AN, Kunar MA, Van Wert MJ et al. Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. J Vis 2008;8:15.
27. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM. Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 2005;435:439-40.
28. Franco EL, Cuzick J. Cervical cancer screening following prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination. Vaccine 2008;26(Suppl 1):A16-23.
29. Syrjanen K, Di Bonito L, Goncalves L et al. Cervical cancer screening in Mediterranean countries: implications for the future. Cytopathology 2010;21:359-67.