Literature DB >> 17230572

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System.

Jennifer M Roberts1, Julia K Thurloe, Ron C Bowditch, Suzanne G Hyne, Merle Greenberg, Joanne M Clarke, Clare Biro.   

Abstract

We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high-grade disease and productivity. The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides. In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy-confirmed high-grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS-screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%). In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high-grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high-grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides. Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17230572     DOI: 10.1002/dc.20600

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol        ISSN: 1097-0339            Impact factor:   1.582


  6 in total

Review 1.  [Computer-assisted diagnostics in cervical cytology].

Authors:  H Ikenberg
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.011

2.  Comparison of ThinPrep Integrated Imager-Assisted Screening versus Manual Screening of ThinPrep Liquid-Based Cytology Specimens.

Authors:  Kyoko Tanaka; Daisuke Aoki; Akiko Tozawa-Ono; Nao Suzuki; Kiyoshi Takamatsu; Masaru Nakamura; Hajime Tsunoda; Shigeo Seino; Noriko Kobayashi; Takefumi Shirayama; Fumiaki Takahashi
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 2.319

Review 3.  A Review of Computational Methods for Cervical Cells Segmentation and Abnormality Classification.

Authors:  Teresa Conceição; Cristiana Braga; Luís Rosado; Maria João M Vasconcelos
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 5.923

4.  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.

Authors:  Brooke R Koltz; Donna K Russell; Naiji Lu; Thomas A Bonfiglio; Sharlin Varghese
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2013-03-30       Impact factor: 2.091

5.  The impact of digital imaging in the field of cytopathology.

Authors:  Liron Pantanowitz; Maryanne Hornish; Robert A Goulart
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 2.091

6.  Uptake of liquid-based cytology as an adjunct to conventional cytology for cervical screening in NSW, Australia: a cross-sectional and population-based cohort analysis.

Authors:  Nayyereh Aminisani; Bruce K Armstrong; Karen Canfell
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.