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.

No abstract

These morphological features are illustrated to help identify HSIL and HG glandular lesions when viewing the FOV presented by the FocalPoint(TM) GS technology.

BD FocalPoint GS™ computer-assisted screening of BD SurePath® liquid-based cervical cytology slides (SP + FP) was compared with screening an accompanying conventional cervical Papanicolaou (Pap) smear (CON) in a split sample trial of 2,198 routine specimens. The rate of unsatisfactory specimens in the SP + FP arm was 0.2% compared with 4.1% in the conventional Pap smear, a significant reduction. There was no statistically significant difference between SP + FP and CON for the detection of histologically confirmed high-grade (HG) lesions in the routine split sample specimens (n = 9). To further test the sensitivity of SP + FP for HG lesions, 38 SurePath slides from confirmed HG cases, without an accompanying CON, were interpolated among the routine smears. In every one of the 47 confirmed HG cases, either HG cells were present in the microscope fields selected by FocalPointGS™ for review by the screening cytologist (46 of 47), or full screening of the slide was indicated by the FocalPointGS™ (1 of 47), confirming the effectiveness of SP + FP technology for primary screening. In a small number of cases, the screening cytologist did not recognize the abnormality even though on review HG cells were present in fields selected by FocalPointGS™. The overall detection rate was 93% for HG squamous lesions; 89% for known HG endocervical glandular lesions; and 91% for known endometrial carcinoma. In conclusion, the SP + FP detected 100% of HG abnormalities in the trial set; significantly reduced the rate of unsatisfactory specimens; and improved the overall screening rate of detection of HG abnormalities particularly of glandular lesions when compared with other screening technologies.

Bed transfers made with a lateral transfer device seem to be as safe as those made by the lift and slide manual transfer. None of the collars tested were significantly better at preventing cervical spine motion during a transfer, but each allowed less movement than no collar.