A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System

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

doi:10.1002/dc.20600

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System

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

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

50 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	96-102
Number of pages	7
Journal	Diagnostic Cytopathology
Volume	35
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20600
Publication status	Published - Feb 2007
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

ThinPrep imaging system
cervical screening
PAP-SMEAR

Access to Document

10.1002/dc.20600

Cite this

@article{dd1f703633b44d62ae9e5fe3ab226616,

title = "A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System",

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.",

keywords = "ThinPrep imaging system, cervical screening, PAP-SMEAR",

author = "Roberts, {Jennifer M.} and Thurloe, {Julia K.} and Bowditch, {Ron C.} and Hyne, {Suzanne G.} and Merle Greenberg and Clarke, {Joanne M.} and Clare Biro",

year = "2007",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1002/dc.20600",

language = "English",

volume = "35",

pages = "96--102",

journal = "Diagnostic Cytopathology",

issn = "8755-1039",

publisher = "Wiley-Liss, Wiley",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System

AU - Roberts, Jennifer M.

AU - Thurloe, Julia K.

AU - Bowditch, Ron C.

AU - Hyne, Suzanne G.

AU - Greenberg, Merle

AU - Clarke, Joanne M.

AU - Biro, Clare

PY - 2007/2

Y1 - 2007/2

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - ThinPrep imaging system

KW - cervical screening

KW - PAP-SMEAR

U2 - 10.1002/dc.20600

DO - 10.1002/dc.20600

M3 - Article

C2 - 17230572

SN - 8755-1039

VL - 35

SP - 96

EP - 102

JO - Diagnostic Cytopathology

JF - Diagnostic Cytopathology

IS - 2

ER -

A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this