Performance and reproducibility of gynecologic cytology interpretation using the focalpoint system: Results of the RODEO study team

American Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 140, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 567-571

  Stein, Maíra Degiovani ^a   Fregnani, José Humberto T G ^a   Scapulatempo, Cristovam ^a   Mafra, Allini ^a   Campacci, Natália ^a   Longatto Filho, Adhemar ^a,b,c,d   De Carvalho, Teóclito Saccheto ^a   De Paula Mateus, Fábio ^a   Da Silva, Eduardo Tadeu ^a   Alves, Michele M Castro ^a   De Lima, Fábio Cardoso ^a   Suriano, Erlaine Martins ^a   Da Silva, Eduardo C A ^a   Da Silva, Sandra M ^a   Kerr, Ligia Maria ^a   Machado, Lucas F A ^a   Mauad, Edmundo C ^a  

^a Pio XII Foundation   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Automation; FocalPoint; Pap test; Quality control; SurePath

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CYTOLOGY; CYTOTECHNOLOGIST; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY; ROBOTICS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA;

AUTOMATION; FOCALPOINT; PAP TEST; QUALITY CONTROL; SUREPATH;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUTOMATION, LABORATORY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84884911970     PISSN: 00029173     EISSN: 19437722     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPWL36JXMRESFH     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. INCA. Estimativa 2012: Neoplasia, maligna do colo do útero. http://www1.inca.gov.br/estimativa/2012/mapa.asp?ID=5. Accessed September 25, 2012.
2. INCA. Brazilian Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: INCA; 2011.
3. Felipe JS, Temporão JG, Silva LA, et al. Nomenclatura brasileira para laudos cervicais e condutas preconizadas. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: INCA; 2006.
4. Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Fischer D, et al. Does the time of day or weekday affect screening accuracy? A pilot correlation study with cytotechnologist workload and abnormal rate detection using the ThinPrep Imaging System. Cancer Cytopathol. 2010;118:41-46.
5. Cibas ES. Cervical and vaginal citology. In: Cibas ES, Ducatman BS, eds. Cytology: Diagnostic Principles and Clinical Correlates. Edinburgh, Scotland: Saunders; 2003:52-54.
6. Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M, et al. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS system performance in an Italian populationbased screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 2007;51:865-871. (Pubitemid 350155956)
7. Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30:107-110. (Pubitemid 38160647)
8. 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.
9. Franco EL, Cuzick J. Cervical cancer screening following prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination. Vaccine. 2008;26(suppl 1):A16-A23. (Pubitemid 351312311)
10. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:147-172.
11. 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. 2011;15:iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-170.
12. Anttila A, Pokhrel A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. Cervical cancer patterns with automation-assisted and conventional cytological screening: a randomized study. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:1204-1212.
13. Colgan TJ, Bon N, Clipsham S, et al. A validation study of the FocalPoint GS imaging system for gynecologic cytology screening. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013;121:189-196.
14. Cengel KA, Day SJ, Davis-Devine S, et al. Effectiveness of the SurePath liquid-based Pap test in automated screening and in detection of HSIL. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;29:250-255. (Pubitemid 37351940)
15. Levi AW, Chhieng DC, Schofield K, et al. Implementation of FocalPoint GS location-guided imaging system: experience in a clinical setting. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012;120:126-133.
16. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Mutch DG, et al. Liquid-based cytology for the postirradiation surveillance of women with gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol. 2003;91:134-138. (Pubitemid 37188603)
17. Evans KK, Tambouret RH, Evered A, et al. Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1557-1560.
18. Sweeney BJ, Wilbur DC. Effects on cervical cytology screening productivity associated with implementation of the BD FocalPoint Guided Screener Imaging System. Acta Cytol. 2013;57:147-152.