Multicenter Comparison of Manual and Automated Screening of AutoCyte Gynecologic Preparations

Bishop, John W.; Kaufman, Raymond H.; Taylor, Dugald A.

doi:10.1159/000330866

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our results show a fair equivalence between the automated and manual analysis, which has been previously reported by a large Finnish study [13], where, although there was a statistical difference between cases diagnosed as LSIL, ASC-H and HSIL, the overall difference was smaller than in other nonrandomized trials [14,15]. The overall high sensitivity of the automated analysis noticed in the current study is also supported by previous reports using liquid-based preparations [5,10,16] and can per se advocate in favor of the implementation of automated screening for conventional smears. HSIL is unfortunately more difficult to recognize in screening of cervical cytology slides, and therefore, any technique that can improve test sensitivity is welcome, given the importance of the early detection of this precancerous lesion.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Although many papers in the literature discuss the usefulness of automated analysis applied to liquid-based preparations [6,7,8], little is discussed for conventional smears [1,2,9,10], which remain the cheapest and most convenient method for early detection of cervical cancer in low-income countries, where this type of cancer is a major health problem [11]. In the current study, we tested the ability of automated screening using the BD FocalPoint Imaging Analyzer (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, N.J., USA) in processing conventional gynecological cytology smears as well as its efficacy in assessing sample adequacy and stratifying cases for risk of malignancy when compared to the manual revision of slides.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automated Screening of Conventional Gynecological Cytology Smears: Feasible and Reliable

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: We tested the ability of automated screening in processing conventional gynecological cytology smears and its efficacy in assessing sample adequacy and stratifying cases for risk of malignancy. Study Design: Cases were retrospectively selected, including unsatisfactory samples and slides with various sorts of artifacts. Automated screening was performed using the FocalPoint GS Imaging System (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, N.J., USA), with classification into five quintiles. For agreement purposes, cases were grouped into high risk for malignancy (quintiles 1 and 2) and low risk for malignancy (quintiles 3, 4 and 5). Results: A total of 120 cases (median age 37.5 years, range 18-85) were included in the study. Eighty-three cases (69.2%) could be successfully classified into quintiles. When divided by risk, 31 cases were placed in the high-risk and 52 in the low-risk group. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the automated analysis was 100 and 70.3%, respectively. Conclusions: Automated analysis could analyze the majority of conventional smears, including one case previously screened as unsatisfactory. All malignant and high-grade lesions were correctly classified into the high-risk group. Broad use of this automation system could potentially decrease screening time and augment the efficacy in detecting precursor neoplastic changes in cervical cytology smears.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated Screening of Conventional Gynecological Cytology Smears: Feasible and Reliable

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wilbur et al, 30 in a study of lowrisk women, determined that the false negative rate due to screening was 14.4% for LSIL and higher and 7.1% for HSIL and higher. Similarly, Bishop et al, 4 looking at a high-risk population, found a false negative rate of 10.6% for LSIL and higher and 10.1% for HSIL and higher. These studies support the conventional wisdom that approximately twothirds to one-half of screening errors are due to inadequate sampling, whereas one-third to one-half of false negative smears are caused by laboratory errors.…”

Section: Screening Errorsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Cervical Cancer Screening, Screening Errors and Reporting

Schneider¹

2001

Acta Cytologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…13,14,[31][32][33][34][35] However, the use of these automated systems is still limited within the cytology community due to their high expense, as well as the logistic preparation needed combined with the drastic changes in daily practice that ensue upon the implementation of such a system in a cytology laboratory. We and others have reported in the past an improvement in the sensitivity of gynecologic RS using RPS.…”

Section: Original Article 314mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement in the routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time

Brimo

Renshaw

Deschênes³

et al. 2009

Cancer Cytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Documenting the performance of gynecologic screening in actual practice settings is difficult to achieve. In the current study, the screening performance of 11 individual cytotechnologists as well as that of the overall laboratory over 2 consecutive time periods was examined using the rapid prescreening (RPS) method. METHODS: RPS was performed by all cytotechnologists in a single laboratory over 2 separate 8-month periods. The sensitivity of screening for individual and groups of cytotechnologists was examined. For purposes of comparison, cytotechnologists were divided into 2 groups: screeners with an overall routine sensitivity !95% and screeners with an overall sensitivity <95%. RESULTS: Atypical squamous cells (ASC) were used as a threshold, and routine screening sensitivity was found to vary from 68.3% to 96.8%.The overall sensitivity of the laboratory for RPS and routine screening was 43.6% and 88.4%, respectively. Over time, the overall laboratory sensitivity of routine screening improved from 85.3% to 91.3% (P ¼ .01).During this same time frame, the sensitivity of the screeners with an overall sensitivity <95% improved from 79.3% to 91.2% (P < .001), whereas the sensitivity of screeners with an overall routine sensitivity !95% remained the same (96.1% to 96.4%; P ¼ .6). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to improved overall performance of the laboratory by detecting and correcting errors, the results of the current study indicate that using RPS consistently over time might play a role leading to improved performance of cytotechnologists with an overall routine sensitivity <95% but not of cytotechnologists with an overall routine sensitivity !95%. KEY WORDS: rapid prescreening, routine screening, performance, sensitivity, improvement, gynecologic cytology, quality control, diagnostic accuracy.Many quality control (QC) methods have been used to increase the sensitivity of cytopathology laboratories, with full rescreening of approximately 10% of randomly selected negative Papanicolaou (Pap) smears being the most commonly used method in North America. Original Article criticized for being inefficient and lacking statistical power to detect low-level achievements in primary screening within laboratories.5-8 Alternative strategies include either manual rescreening of all negative Pap smears, which is time-consuming and not practical in a high-volume laboratory, or automated rescreening of all negative Pap smears, which has generated promising results but is still expensive and not widely used. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Rapid prescreening (RPS) of all gynecologic specimens is an inexpensive technique that was introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) as an alternative and useful QC standard; however, it is far from becoming routine practice in North America. 17-19As a matter of fact, even in the UK, the most widely used QC method is rapid rescreening (RR) rather than RPS. 9,16 In that regard, Arbyn et al 5 have demonstrated that RPS and RR yield comparable gains in the detection of missed abnormalities, with...

show abstract

Multicenter Comparison of Manual and Automated Screening of AutoCyte Gynecologic Preparations

Cited by 22 publications

References 5 publications

Automated Screening of Conventional Gynecological Cytology Smears: Feasible and Reliable

Automated Screening of Conventional Gynecological Cytology Smears: Feasible and Reliable

Cervical Cancer Screening, Screening Errors and Reporting

Improvement in the routine screening performance of cytotechnologists over time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About