Performance and Reproducibility of Gynecologic Cytology Interpretation Using the FocalPoint System Results of the RODEO Study Team

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
13
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2013
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
AMER SOC CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Autores
STEIN, Maira Degiovani
FREGNANI, Jose Humberto T. G.
SCAPULATEMPO, Cristovam
MAFRA, Allini
CAMPACCI, Natalia
Citação
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, v.140, n.4, p.567-571, 2013
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Objectives: To assess whether automated screening in the cytologic examination of Papanicolaou smear slides results in smaller margins of error than manual screening. Methods: We compared cytotechnologists' performance and reproducibility of manual and automated screening of 10,165 consecutive cervical cytology slides examined at Barretos Cancer Hospital using the FocalPoint system. Results: In total, 83% of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and greater were classified as quintiles 1 and 2; no high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and greater were observed in quintile 5. No statistically significant differences were found between manual and automated screening, using cervical biopsy specimens as the gold standard. Conclusions: FocalPoint safely screened high-grade lesions, which can be valuable for high-workload routines.
Palavras-chave
Pap test, Automation, FocalPoint, SurePath, Quality control
Referências
  1. Anttila A, 2011, INT J CANCER, V128, P1204, DOI 10.1002/ijc.25677
  2. Cengel KA, 2003, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V29, P250, DOI 10.1002/dc.10373
  3. Cibas ES, 2003, CYTOLOGY DIAGNOSTIC, P52
  4. Colgan TJ, 2013, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V121, P189, DOI 10.1002/cncy.21271
  5. Elsheikh TM, 2010, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V118, P41, DOI 10.1002/cncy.20060
  6. Evans KK, 2011, ARCH PATHOL LAB MED, V135, P1557, DOI 10.5858/arpa.2010-0739-OA
  7. Felipe JS, 2006, NOMENCLATURA BRASILE
  8. Franco EL, 2008, VACCINE, V26, pA16, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.11.069
  9. INCA, 2011, BRAZ CERV CANC SCREE
  10. INCA, EST 2012 NEOPL MAL C
  11. Kitchener HC, 2011, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V15, piii
  12. Kitchener HC, 2011, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V15, pix
  13. Kitchener HC, 2011, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V15, P1
  14. Levi AW, 2012, CANCER CYTOPATHOL, V120, P126, DOI 10.1002/cncy.20187
  15. Parker EM, 2004, DIAGN CYTOPATHOL, V30, P107, DOI 10.1002/dc.10358
  16. Passamonti B, 2007, ACTA CYTOL, V51, P865, DOI 10.1159/000325862
  17. Saslow D, 2012, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V62, P147, DOI 10.3322/caac.21139
  18. Sweeney BJ, 2013, ACTA CYTOL, V57, P147, DOI 10.1159/000345569
  19. Wilbur DC, 2009, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V132, P767, DOI 10.1309/AJCP8VE7AWBZCVQT
  20. Wright JD, 2003, GYNECOL ONCOL, V91, P134, DOI 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00509-2