AutoCyte Prep® system vs. conventional cervical cytology

Comparison based on 2,156 cases

Lisa Minge, Maureen Fleming, Thomas VanGeem, John W Bishop

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the AutoCyte Prep® system (Burlington, North Carolina) with conventional cervical cytology in a university medical center laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Split-sample conventional and AutoCyte Preps® were examined for 2,156 cases. Same-patient conventional and Prep® slides were submitted to separate cytotechnologists blindly. The results were compared on review by a cytopathologist. The Prep® slides were subsequently scanned on the AutoCyte Screen® automated interactive system, with manual review of the flagged cases. The results were compared with anatomic pathology follow-up when available. RESULTS: Of the 158 squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) found by both methods, 78% were found by AutoCyte Prep®, while 59% were found by conventional smear (P <.01). Among the discordant cases, thin-layer slides revealed 88% more LSIL lesions (P< .05), a comparable number of high grade SIL lesions and a single case of adenocarcinoma that was ambiguous on the conventional slide. The addition of AutoCyte® assisted primary screening demonstrated a net benefit, recovering additional cases referenced as atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance and as high grade SIL. CONCLUSION: The AutoCyte Prep® system affords excellent cellular presentations and superior sensitivity for SILs when compared to the conventional technique. The use of AutoCyte Screen® for primary screening demonstrated performance equivalent to manual screening, with a significant improvement in sensitivity when measured against biopsy results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)179-184
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist
Volume45
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2000

Fingerprint

Cell Biology
Adenocarcinoma
Pathology
Biopsy
Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix

Keywords

  • AutoCyte®
  • Cervical smears
  • Cervix neoplasms
  • Computer-assisted diagnosis
  • Mass screening

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Reproductive Medicine

Cite this

AutoCyte Prep® system vs. conventional cervical cytology : Comparison based on 2,156 cases. / Minge, Lisa; Fleming, Maureen; VanGeem, Thomas; Bishop, John W.

In: Journal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist, Vol. 45, No. 3, 03.2000, p. 179-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{82d0d4f562c24578afa5d49195f90cfe,
title = "AutoCyte Prep{\circledR} system vs. conventional cervical cytology: Comparison based on 2,156 cases",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To compare the AutoCyte Prep{\circledR} system (Burlington, North Carolina) with conventional cervical cytology in a university medical center laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Split-sample conventional and AutoCyte Preps{\circledR} were examined for 2,156 cases. Same-patient conventional and Prep{\circledR} slides were submitted to separate cytotechnologists blindly. The results were compared on review by a cytopathologist. The Prep{\circledR} slides were subsequently scanned on the AutoCyte Screen{\circledR} automated interactive system, with manual review of the flagged cases. The results were compared with anatomic pathology follow-up when available. RESULTS: Of the 158 squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) found by both methods, 78{\%} were found by AutoCyte Prep{\circledR}, while 59{\%} were found by conventional smear (P <.01). Among the discordant cases, thin-layer slides revealed 88{\%} more LSIL lesions (P< .05), a comparable number of high grade SIL lesions and a single case of adenocarcinoma that was ambiguous on the conventional slide. The addition of AutoCyte{\circledR} assisted primary screening demonstrated a net benefit, recovering additional cases referenced as atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance and as high grade SIL. CONCLUSION: The AutoCyte Prep{\circledR} system affords excellent cellular presentations and superior sensitivity for SILs when compared to the conventional technique. The use of AutoCyte Screen{\circledR} for primary screening demonstrated performance equivalent to manual screening, with a significant improvement in sensitivity when measured against biopsy results.",
keywords = "AutoCyte{\circledR}, Cervical smears, Cervix neoplasms, Computer-assisted diagnosis, Mass screening",
author = "Lisa Minge and Maureen Fleming and Thomas VanGeem and Bishop, {John W}",
year = "2000",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "179--184",
journal = "The Journal of reproductive medicine",
issn = "0024-7758",
publisher = "Donna Kessel",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - AutoCyte Prep® system vs. conventional cervical cytology

T2 - Comparison based on 2,156 cases

AU - Minge, Lisa

AU - Fleming, Maureen

AU - VanGeem, Thomas

AU - Bishop, John W

PY - 2000/3

Y1 - 2000/3

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare the AutoCyte Prep® system (Burlington, North Carolina) with conventional cervical cytology in a university medical center laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Split-sample conventional and AutoCyte Preps® were examined for 2,156 cases. Same-patient conventional and Prep® slides were submitted to separate cytotechnologists blindly. The results were compared on review by a cytopathologist. The Prep® slides were subsequently scanned on the AutoCyte Screen® automated interactive system, with manual review of the flagged cases. The results were compared with anatomic pathology follow-up when available. RESULTS: Of the 158 squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) found by both methods, 78% were found by AutoCyte Prep®, while 59% were found by conventional smear (P <.01). Among the discordant cases, thin-layer slides revealed 88% more LSIL lesions (P< .05), a comparable number of high grade SIL lesions and a single case of adenocarcinoma that was ambiguous on the conventional slide. The addition of AutoCyte® assisted primary screening demonstrated a net benefit, recovering additional cases referenced as atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance and as high grade SIL. CONCLUSION: The AutoCyte Prep® system affords excellent cellular presentations and superior sensitivity for SILs when compared to the conventional technique. The use of AutoCyte Screen® for primary screening demonstrated performance equivalent to manual screening, with a significant improvement in sensitivity when measured against biopsy results.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To compare the AutoCyte Prep® system (Burlington, North Carolina) with conventional cervical cytology in a university medical center laboratory. STUDY DESIGN: Split-sample conventional and AutoCyte Preps® were examined for 2,156 cases. Same-patient conventional and Prep® slides were submitted to separate cytotechnologists blindly. The results were compared on review by a cytopathologist. The Prep® slides were subsequently scanned on the AutoCyte Screen® automated interactive system, with manual review of the flagged cases. The results were compared with anatomic pathology follow-up when available. RESULTS: Of the 158 squamous intraepithelial lesions (SILs) found by both methods, 78% were found by AutoCyte Prep®, while 59% were found by conventional smear (P <.01). Among the discordant cases, thin-layer slides revealed 88% more LSIL lesions (P< .05), a comparable number of high grade SIL lesions and a single case of adenocarcinoma that was ambiguous on the conventional slide. The addition of AutoCyte® assisted primary screening demonstrated a net benefit, recovering additional cases referenced as atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance and as high grade SIL. CONCLUSION: The AutoCyte Prep® system affords excellent cellular presentations and superior sensitivity for SILs when compared to the conventional technique. The use of AutoCyte Screen® for primary screening demonstrated performance equivalent to manual screening, with a significant improvement in sensitivity when measured against biopsy results.

KW - AutoCyte®

KW - Cervical smears

KW - Cervix neoplasms

KW - Computer-assisted diagnosis

KW - Mass screening

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034077113&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034077113&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 179

EP - 184

JO - The Journal of reproductive medicine

JF - The Journal of reproductive medicine

SN - 0024-7758

IS - 3

ER -