Cervicovaginal cytology in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy using the Focalpoint system: results from the RODEO study

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_STEIN_Cervicovaginal_cytology_in_patients_undergoing_pelvic_radiotherapy_using_2015.PDF (568.92 KB)
Citações na Scopus
4
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
Autores
STEIN, Maira Degiovani
FREGNANI, Jose Humberto T. G.
SCAPULATEMPO-NETO, Cristovam
Citação
DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY, v.10, article ID 1, 5p, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Evaluate the performance of the Focalpoint system in identifying and classifying cervical cytology alterations from samples collected from patients treated with Radiotherapy (RT). Methods: The reproducibility of manual and automated screening by cytotechnologists using the BD Focalpoint GS Imaging System was examined. Samples were collected from May 2010 to August 2011. Results: A total of 378 treated with RT and 8,967 cytology samples from patients without previous RT, were evaluated. The kappa values for cytological diagnoses read manually and automated in cases without previous RT were as follows: < ASC-H vs. >= ASC-H = 0.71; < LSIL vs. >= LSIL = 0.66; and < HSIL vs. >= HSIL = 0.67. The kappa for cytological diagnoses in post-RT women have showed: < ASC-H vs. >= ASC-H = 0.71; < LSIL vs. >= LSIL = 0.65; < HSIL vs. >= HSIL = 0.57. Conclusions: There was no significant difference among the kappa values we found. Post-RT cytology showed small diagnostic agreement between manual and automated examination. Virtual Slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/13000_2014_231
Palavras-chave
Pap test, Radiotherapy, Automation, Focalpoint, SurePath
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/9591
Referências
  1. Barzon L, 2002, J MED VIROL, V67, P401, DOI 10.1002/jmv.10077
  2. Chen SM, 2012, DIAGN PATHOL, V7, DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-7-40
  3. Chien CR, 2005, EUR J GYNAECOL ONCOL, V26, P619
  4. Cibas ES, 2003, CYTOLOGY DIAGNOSTIC, P52
  5. Franco EL, 2008, VACCINE, V26, pA16, DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.11.069
  6. Idelevich P, 2010, DIAGN PATHOL, V5, DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-5-70
  7. Liu HQ, 2012, DIAGN PATHOL, V7, DOI 10.1186/1746-1596-7-147
  8. Longatto A, 1997, ACTA CYTOL, V41, P1079
  9. LONGATTO A, 1990, ACTA CYTOL, V34, P652
  10. Renshaw AA, 2013, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V139, P428, DOI 10.1309/AJCP23YDFKKQNUAO
  11. Rimel BJ, 2011, OBSTET GYNECOL, V118, P548, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182271fdd
  12. Solomon D, 2004, BETHESDA SYSTEM REPO
  13. Stein MD, 2013, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V140, P567, DOI 10.1309/AJCPWL36JXMRESFH
  14. Sweeney BJ, 2013, ACTA CYTOL, V57, P147, DOI 10.1159/000345569
  15. Tsilalis T, 2012, TELEMED E-HEALTH, V18, P516, DOI 10.1089/tmj.2011.0167
  16. Wagner A, 2013, GYNECOL ONCOL, V130, P229, DOI 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.04.052
  17. Wright JD, 2003, GYNECOL ONCOL, V91, P134, DOI 10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00509-2
  18. Zannoni GF, 2008, AM J CLIN PATHOL, V130, P787, DOI 10.1309/AJCPP1ZWK8EMHBCZ

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/14