4.1 Article

Comparative Analysis of Cervical Cytology Screening Methods and Staining Protocols for Detection Rate and Accurate Interpretation of ASC-H: Data From a High-Volume Laboratory in Turkey

期刊

DIAGNOSTIC CYTOPATHOLOGY
卷 43, 期 11, 页码 863-869

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dc.23311

关键词

cervical cytology; ASC-H; detection rate; ThinPrep (R) imaging system; ThinPrep (R) Pap stain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of the ThinPrep (R) Imaging System (TIS) and ThinPrep (R) Pap Stain (TPPS). A comparative analysis was conducted to determine the detection rates of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H), the ASC: squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) ratio, biopsy follow-up for ASC-H in terms of the screening method used (manual screening [MS] vs. TIS screening [TISS]) and the staining protocol (regular Pap stain [RPS] vs. TPPS). Methods: This study was performed over two periods. The RPS period included manually screened slides, whereas the TPPS period included TIS + manually screened slides. All data from the study periods were compared using statistical analysis. Results: The detection rate of ASC-H was significantly higher during the TPPS period than during the RPS period (0.49% vs. 0.23%); this finding is in contrast to the insignificant difference between the screening method periods. The positive predictive value (PPV) of ASC-H cytodiagnosis for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more severe histologies was signifi-cantly different between manually screened and TIS slides (22.10% vs. 38.55%), in contrast to an insignificant difference between RPS and TPPS periods (37.14% vs. 29.77%). Conclusion: Implementation of the TIS did not change the ASC-H detection rates appreciably. However, the new technology improved PPV for ASC-H cytodiagnosis and enabled the detection of true disease. Our laboratory statistics indicate that the TPPS is not a superior staining protocol and did not increase our diagnostic accuracy for ASC-H compared with RPS. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据