Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System.

We report the clinical trial studies for the ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS; Cytyc, Boxborough, MA). Between December 2000 and July 2001, 10,742 ThinPrep specimens were collected at 4 US clinical sites representative of the normal clinical population of the laboratories, including screening patients and referred patients. After nonstudy screening diagnoses were completed, the vials were relabeled and randomized, and study slides were prepared and stained. TIS-trained cytotechnologists and pathologists screened the slides twice, first manually, then TIS-assisted after an appropriate interval. Afterward, 3 independent pathologists performed an adjudication study to determine definitive diagnoses for the nonnegative slides and 5% of the negative slides; the adjudicated diagnoses served as the "gold standard" for subsequent sensitivity and specificity analyses. TIS-assisted screening was statistically more sensitive than manual screening for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or higher (+) and statistically equivalent for low- (LSIL)+ and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL)+ diagnoses. TIS-assisted screening had equivalent specificity for ASCUS+ and LSIL+ and significantly higher specificity for HSIL+. Average cytologists' daily screening rates doubled with TIS-assisted screening. The sensitivity of the TIS-assisted screening system equals or exceeds the sensitivity of manual primary screening without adversely affecting specificity, and TIS-assisted screening can improve cervical cancer screening productivity. Cost issues require further study.

[1]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[2]  J D Habbema,et al.  The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. , 1999, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[3]  G. Birdsong Automated screening of cervical cytology specimens. , 1996, Human pathology.

[4]  Mark H Stoler,et al.  Advances in Cervical Screening Technology , 2000, Modern Pathology.

[5]  B. Jones,et al.  Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  J. Bishop,et al.  Multicenter Comparison of Manual and Automated Screening of AutoCyte Gynecologic Preparations , 1999, Acta Cytologica.

[7]  David C Wilbur,et al.  Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[8]  L. Mango,et al.  Performance of a semiautomated papanicolaou smear screening system , 1998 .

[9]  R. Demay,et al.  Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation. , 1997, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[10]  P. Saigo,et al.  Proposed guidelines for primary screening instruments for gynecologic cytology , 1998, American journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  References , 1971 .

[12]  B. Frémont,et al.  SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS DATA , 2002 .

[13]  M. Stoler,et al.  Human papillomaviruses and cervical neoplasia: a model for carcinogenesis. , 2000, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[14]  Diane Solomon,et al.  The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/Vaginal Cytologic Diagnoses , 1994, Springer US.

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

[16]  M. Nasiell,et al.  Behavior of mild cervical dysplasia during long‐term follow‐up , 1987, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  T. Cornelison,et al.  Impact of Increasing Papanicolaou Test Sensitivity and Compliance: A Modeled Cost and Outcomes Analysis , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.