Bolger Noel, Heffron Cynthia, Regan Irene, Sweeney Mary, Kinsella Sinead, McKeown Mary, Creighton Grace, Russell Joan, O'Leary John
Department of Cytopathology, Coombe Women's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Acta Cytol. 2006 Sep-Oct;50(5):483-91. doi: 10.1159/000326001.
To compare automated interactive screening using the ThinPrep Imaging System with independent manual primary screening of 12,000 routine ThinPrep slides.
With the first 6,000 cases, the Review Scopes (RS) screening results from the 22 fields of view (FOV) only were compared to independent manual primary screening. In the next 6,000 cases, any abnormality detected in the 22 FOV resulted in full manual screening on the cytotechnologist's own microscope. Sensitivity and specificity together with their 95% CIs were calculatedfor each method.
In the first set of 6, 000 cases, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the imager were 85.19% and 96.67%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of manual primary screening were 89.38% and 98.42%. This highersensitivity and specificity of manual primary screening were found to be statistically significant. The second set of 6,000 cases demonstrated no significant statistical difference in sensitivity or specificity between the sets of data.
The results from our study show that the sensitivity and specificity of the imager technology are equivalent to those of manual primary screening. The system is ideally suited to the rapid screening of negative cases, allowing increased laboratory productivity and greater throughput of cases on a daily basis.
