Effect of thin Prep® imaging system on laboratory rate and relative sensitivity of atypical squamous cells, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion not excluded and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion interpretations

CytoJournal

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Koltz, Brooke R ^a   Russell, Donna K ^a   Lu, Naiji ^a   Bonfiglio, Thomas A ^a   Varghese, Sharlin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Atypical squamous cells; Automated screening; Cannot exclude high grade; High grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; Thin prep imaging system

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; IMAGING SYSTEM; MIDDLE AGED; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THIN PREP IMAGING SYSTEM; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84891939817     PISSN: 09745963     EISSN: 17426413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4103/1742-6413.109720     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Spriggs AI. Automatic scanning for cervical smears. J Clin Pathol Suppl Coll Pathol 1969;3:1-7.
2. Stoler MH. Advances in cervical screening technology. Mod Pathol 2000;13:275-84. (Pubitemid 30207512)
3. Dawson AE. Can we change the way we screen?: the ThinPrep imaging system. Cancer 2004;102:340-4.
4. 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. (Pubitemid 46835025)
5. 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.
6. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, Galup L, Darragh T, Rahemtulla A, et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep imaging system. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281-7. (Pubitemid 40194092)
7. Lozano R. Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:134-8. (Pubitemid 46054112)
8. Barroeta JE, Reilly ME, Steinhoff MM, Lawrence WD. Utility of the Thin Prep imaging system ® in the detection of squamous intraepithelial abnormalities on retrospective evaluation: Can we trust the imager? Diagn Cytopathol 2012;40:124-7.
9. 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. (Pubitemid 351312129)
10. 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.
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. 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.
13. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Colgan TJ, Styer PE, Mody DR. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:1224-9. (Pubitemid 39441643)
14. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11:201-22. (Pubitemid 47530909)
15. Solomon D, Nayar R. The Besthesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definition, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
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 high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:318-26.
17. Nieminen P, Kotaniemi L, Hakama M, Tarkkanen J, Martikainen J, Toivonen T, et al. A randomised public-health trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: Performance with 470,000 invitations. Int J Cancer 2005;115:307-11. (Pubitemid 40586742)
18. 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.
19. 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. (Pubitemid 46516675)
20. Duby JM, DiFurio MJ. Implementation of the ThinPrep imaging system in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer 2009;117:264-70.
21. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G, Gunn L, Desai M, Albrow R, et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:56-64.