Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology.

OBJECTIVE The Pap smear, introduced over 50 years ago, has significantly contributed to the reduction of mortality due to cervical cancer. The shortage of skilled cytotechnologists to screen and diagnose Pap slides has always been a concern, thus driving the goal to develop an automated system. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of an automated computer imaging system for routine cervical cancer screening in a high-volume independent laboratory. METHODS Validation and training were conducted upon installation of the computer imaging system. Following validation, data were evaluated comparing cytologic detection rates of a six-month cohort of slides screened with computer imaging assistance versus a historic control of manually screened slides. RESULTS For each cytologic abnormal category, the Imager-assisted detection rates were significantly greater than the manually screened historic cohort. The Imager increased the detection of HSIL+ by 38% and LSIL by 46% compared to manual screening. There was an increase in the rate of ASC in the Imager cohort (6.5%) compared to manual screening (4.1%), however, the ASC rate decreased during the time of the study period suggesting learning affect. CONCLUSIONS The results indicate that computer-imaging-assisted screening significantly increased the cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities compared to manual screening. The initial increase in ASC rates is partially due to a new stain protocol that may be corrected with additional experience. The implementation of the Imager, however, did not adversely affect the ASC:SIL ratio.

[1]  M. Sherman,et al.  The 2001 Bethesda system: Terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology , 2002 .

[2]  R. Ashfaq,et al.  Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening , 1997 .

[3]  K R Lee,et al.  Comparison of Conventional Papanicolaou Smears and a Fluid‐Based, Thin‐Layer System for Cervical Cancer Screening , 1997, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  B. Dziura,et al.  Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[5]  Alberto M. Marchevsky,et al.  Image Analysis: A Primer for Pathologists , 1994 .

[6]  S S Cross,et al.  Image Analysis: A Primer for Pathologists , 1995 .

[7]  T J O'Leary,et al.  PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy. , 1998, JAMA.

[8]  D. Wilbur,et al.  Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[9]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Interim Guidance for the Use of Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing as an Adjunct to Cervical Cytology for Screening , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  M. Spitzer,et al.  Cervical screening adjuncts: recent advances. , 1998, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Mark Sherman,et al.  The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. , 2002, JAMA.