4.6 Article

Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 134-138

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.07.025

关键词

computer-assisted screening; manual screening; cervical cytology; cytyc imager

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The Pap smear, introduced over 50 years ago, has significantly contributed to the reduction of mortality due to cervical cancer. The shortage of skilled cytotechnologists to screen and diagnose Pap slides has always been a concern, thus driving the goal to develop an automated system. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of an automated computer imaging system for routine cervical cancer screening in a high-volume independent laboratory. Methods. Validation and training were conducted upon installation of the computer imaging system. Following validation, data were evaluated comparing cytologic detection rates of a six-month cohort of slides screened with computer imaging assistance versus a historic control of manually screened slides. Results. For each cytologic abnormal category, the Imager-assisted detection rates were significantly greater than the manually screened historic cohort. The Imager increased the detection of HSIL+ by 38% and LSIL by 46% compared to manual screening. There was an increase in the rate of ASC in the Imager cohort (6.5 %) compared to manual screening (4.1 %), however, the ASC rate decreased during the time of the study period suggesting learning affect. Conclusions. The results indicate that computer-imaging-assisted screening significantly increased the cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities compared to manual screening. The initial increase in ASC rates is partially due to a new stain protocol that may be corrected with additional experience. The implementation of the Imager, however, did not adversely affect the ASC:SIL ratio. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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