A real time optoelectronic device as an adjunct to the Pap smear for cervical screening: A multicenter evaluation

We report on the results from a multicenter trial for a real time optoelectronic device as an adjunct to the Pap smear for cervical screening. TruScreen (Polartechnics Limited, Sydney, Australia) is an automated device which measures the response to optical and electrical stimulation of the cervix and returns a screening result in real time. Analysis was performed on a group of 651 subjects recruited at 10 centers. Cytology and histology analyses were performed by centralized laboratories, with the cytology classification performed according to the Bethesda 2001 system. The sensitivities for histologically confirmed CIN 2/3 lesions by TruScreen, Pap, and TruScreen/Pap combined were 70% (95% CI: 67–74), 69% (CI: 65–72), and 93% (CI: 91–95), respectively. For histologically reported CIN 1, the sensitivities of the TruScreen, Pap, and combined test were 67% (CI: 63–70), 45% (CI: 41–49), and 87% (CI: 84–89). The improvement in sensitivity for the combined test compared to the Pap smear alone was significant (P = 0.002). Because TruScreen and cytology detect partly different but overlapping groups of CIN cases, the adjunctive combination provides very high CIN detection rates.

[1]  C. Bergeron The 2001 Bethesda system. , 2003, Salud publica de Mexico.

[2]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 1989, BMJ.

[3]  L Irwig,et al.  Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. , 1995, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  V. Skladnev,et al.  An electronic approach to the detection of pre-cancer and cancer of the uterine cervix: a preliminary evaluation of Polarprobe , 1993, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[5]  E. Boyko Re: "Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy". , 1996, American journal of epidemiology.

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

[7]  Louise Kuhn,et al.  Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening , 2002, Cancer.

[8]  M. Broadstock Liquid‐based cytology – an alternative international view , 2001, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[9]  J. Eisenberg,et al.  Views from funding agencies. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. , 1998, Medical care.

[10]  A J Robertson,et al.  Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. , 1989, Journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  Thomas C Wright,et al.  2001 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women with Cervical Cytological Abnormalities. , 2002, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[12]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Evaluation of cervical cytology. , 1999, Evidence report/technology assessment.

[13]  R. Hiatt,et al.  Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan , 2000, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[14]  M Quinn,et al.  Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. , 1999, BMJ.