Cervical histology after routine ThinPrep or SurePath liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted reading in Denmark
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Standard
Cervical histology after routine ThinPrep or SurePath liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted reading in Denmark. / Rebolj, Matejka; Rask, Johanne; van Ballegooijen, Marjolein; Kirschner, Benny; Rozemeijer, Kirsten; Bonde, Jesper; Rygaard, Carsten; Lynge, Elsebeth.
In: B J C, Vol. 113, No. 9, 2015, p. 1259-74.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cervical histology after routine ThinPrep or SurePath liquid-based cytology and computer-assisted reading in Denmark
AU - Rebolj, Matejka
AU - Rask, Johanne
AU - van Ballegooijen, Marjolein
AU - Kirschner, Benny
AU - Rozemeijer, Kirsten
AU - Bonde, Jesper
AU - Rygaard, Carsten
AU - Lynge, Elsebeth
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - BACKGROUND: We compared the sensitivity and specificity of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and computer-assisted reading for SurePath/FocalPoint and ThinPrep with those of manually read conventional cytology in routine cervical screening in four Danish laboratories.METHODS: Using data from five nationwide registers, technological phases were identified by slide preparation, reading technique, and triage of borderline cytology. Trends in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were an indicator of the technology's relative sensitivity, and trends in false-positive tests an indicator of relative specificity.RESULTS: At 23-29 years, SurePath/FocalPoint statistically significantly increased the detection of ⩾CIN3 by 85% compared with manually read conventional cytology. The 11% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 30-44 years, the increase with SurePath/FocalPoint was 58%; the 16% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 45-59 years, both technologies led to nonsignificant decreases in the detection. SurePath/FocalPoint doubled the frequency of false-positive tests at any age. With ThinPrep, these proportions remained the same at 23-29 years, but decreased by two-thirds at 45-59 years. In a fourth laboratory with continuous use of manually read conventional cytology, no such trends were seen.CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and specificity of modern LBC and computer-assisted reading technologies may be brand- and age-dependent.
AB - BACKGROUND: We compared the sensitivity and specificity of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and computer-assisted reading for SurePath/FocalPoint and ThinPrep with those of manually read conventional cytology in routine cervical screening in four Danish laboratories.METHODS: Using data from five nationwide registers, technological phases were identified by slide preparation, reading technique, and triage of borderline cytology. Trends in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were an indicator of the technology's relative sensitivity, and trends in false-positive tests an indicator of relative specificity.RESULTS: At 23-29 years, SurePath/FocalPoint statistically significantly increased the detection of ⩾CIN3 by 85% compared with manually read conventional cytology. The 11% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 30-44 years, the increase with SurePath/FocalPoint was 58%; the 16% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 45-59 years, both technologies led to nonsignificant decreases in the detection. SurePath/FocalPoint doubled the frequency of false-positive tests at any age. With ThinPrep, these proportions remained the same at 23-29 years, but decreased by two-thirds at 45-59 years. In a fourth laboratory with continuous use of manually read conventional cytology, no such trends were seen.CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and specificity of modern LBC and computer-assisted reading technologies may be brand- and age-dependent.
KW - Adult
KW - Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
KW - Cervix Uteri
KW - Cytodiagnosis
KW - Denmark
KW - False Positive Reactions
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Sensitivity and Specificity
KW - Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
KW - Vaginal Smears
KW - Young Adult
U2 - 10.1038/bjc.2015.339
DO - 10.1038/bjc.2015.339
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 26448176
VL - 113
SP - 1259
EP - 1274
JO - The British journal of cancer. Supplement
JF - The British journal of cancer. Supplement
SN - 0007-0920
IS - 9
ER -
ID: 161847937