A Feasibility Study of the AutoPap System Location-Guided Screening

Lee, James S.J.; Kuan, Leonard; Oh, Se-Ho; Patten, Florence W.; Wilbur, David C.

doi:10.1159/000331550

Cited by 31 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of the current study was to assess the sensitivity of the system utilizing Location-Guided Screening (LGS) 4 in Taiwan. AutoPap ® LGS has great potential for improving the quality of cervical cytology screening and alleviating the shortage of cytotechnologists.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity Studies of AutoPap® System Location-Guided Screening of Cervical-Vaginal Cytologic Smears

Huang

Lin²,

Lee³

1999

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity Studies of AutoPap® System Location-Guided Screening of Cervical-Vaginal Cytologic Smears

Huang

Lin²,

Lee³

1999

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most studies aimed at assessing AutoPap system performance have focused on higher sensitivity and on reduced reading workload compared with conventional reading,1–5, 12 and few have addressed specifically the issue of the NPV of an NFR report 11. NPV for CIN2+ is assumed to be very high, but not absolute, and because some false negatives are expected, a routine quality control measure, such as manual review of a random subset of cases reported as NFR, can be suggested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Automated reading of Papanicolaou (Pap) smears by the AutoPap (AutoPap Primary Screening System 300, Tripath Imaging Inc., Burlington, NC) system (presently commercialized as FocalPoint) has been proposed as a measure to reduce manual reading workload, and possibly overall costs, in current screening practice 1–5. AutoPap is reported to code as No Further Review (NFR) up to 25% of total smears, which may be safely assumed to be negative without conventional manual reading 3…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of sparing papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as No Further Review at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening

Troni

Cariaggi

Bulgaresi

et al. 2007

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In a previous study, 5 cytotechnologists evaluated a set of abnormal smears on the basis of PapMaps. At least one abnormal cell was found in FOVs marked by using PapMaps in 85% of cases previously classified as ASCUS by an expert cytopathologist and in 98% of cases classified as LSIL or more severe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each circled area corresponds to a ϫ 10 microscopic field of vision (FOV). The PapMaps can potentially be used in two ways, 5,6 i.e., a) to triage smears that need to be completely reviewed on the basis of marked fields or b) to provide a diagnosis based only on the marked fields.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of the AutoPap (currently focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis

Ronco

Vineis

Montanari³

et al. 2002

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AutoPap (currently Focalpoint) is a computerized scanning system for the primary screening of cervicovaginal smears. For smears indicated to require further review, the system provides maps (PapMaps) to identify the most abnormal areas of the smear. METHODS To study the effect of PapMaps on diagnosis, 481 smears (from 4656 successfully processed smears using AutoPap) were first classified by conventional manual interpretation and then reinterpreted blind by the same cytologist who limited his examination to only the fields of view marked by the PapMaps. The interpretation time with and without PapMaps was measured on another simple random sample of 188 smears. RESULTS The interpretation time was reduced significantly, by approximately 40% using PapMaps (average reduction, 136 seconds per smear, 95% confidence interval [CI], 123–150). No cases manually classified as low‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) or worse and 20% of those manually classified as atypical squamous cells of undertermined significance (ASCUS) were judged as completely normal on the basis of fields of visions marked by PapMaps. In none of the latter was a histologically confirmed intraepithelial lesion identified. In relation to detailed diagnosis, the weighted kappa between manual and PapMap‐aided interpretation was 0.745 (95% CI 0.687–0.804). Systematic differences were found (symmetry chi‐square10d.f =19.11, P = 0.039): 48% of smears classified as ASCUS and 23% classified as LSIL by conventional diagnosis were classified as less severe (including normal) on the basis of PapMaps. CONCLUSIONS Use of PapMaps resulted in a substantial reduction in interpretation time. PapMaps showed good sensitivity (100% for squamous intraepithelial lesions and 80% for ACSUC) for selecting abnormal slides. The latter require full examination: detailed diagnosis based only on areas marked by PapMaps could lead to under‐grading. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2003;99:83–8. © 2003 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

A Feasibility Study of the AutoPap System Location-Guided Screening

Cited by 31 publications

References 2 publications

Sensitivity Studies of AutoPap® System Location-Guided Screening of Cervical-Vaginal Cytologic Smears

Sensitivity Studies of AutoPap® System Location-Guided Screening of Cervical-Vaginal Cytologic Smears

Reliability of sparing papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as No Further Review at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening

Impact of the AutoPap (currently focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About