Objective: The large set of ThinPrep slides prepared in the Leiden Cytology and Pathology Laboratory is exploited for calculating the impact of the transition from PAPNET neural network scanning to the Imager technology. Study Design: All cervical samples were suspended and fixed in the coagulant fixative BoonFix. We compared 57,541 ThinPrep slides which were scanned by PAPNET and 64,273 ThinPrep slides processed with the Imager: 99,157 cases originated from the Dutch population screening program of asymptomatic women (screenees) and the remaining 22,657 samples were of symptomatic women. In the PAPNET series, 23% were diagnosed by additional light microscopy; in the Imager method, all slides were studied light microscopically. The cytoscores (positive cytology per 1,000 samples) were calculated for normal, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades I–II, and for CIN III+. The odds ratios (ORs) for the positive cytoscores were assessed for both the screenees and the symptomatic women. Results: The cytoscores, per 1,000 cases, for ASC-US varied from 17.77 to 40.59, for CIN I–II from 7.17 to 33.35, and for CIN III+ from 2.81 to 8.8. These 6 cytoscores were higher for symptomatic women than for screenees. We observe significantly elevated ORs for the Imager for ASC-US (1.26 and 1.23), CIN I–II (1.45) and for CIN III+ (1.58 and 1.45). These 3 ORs are higher for screenees than for symptomatic women. Conclusion: The Imager technology is more efficacious, particularly for handling screenee slides.

Kok MR: Neural network-based screening in cervical cytology: do we need the light microscope? PhD thesis, Utrecht, 2000.
Davey E, d’Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, Farnsworth A: Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistics notes. The odds ratio. BMJ 2000;320:1468.
Boon ME, Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Suurmeijer AJH, Kok LP: Diagnostic parameters in liquid-based cervical cytology using a coagulant suspension fixative. Acta Cytol 2005;49:513–519.
Moerenhout DAGM, Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Meijer-Marres EM, Ploem JS, Boon ME: Mechanical treatment of gynaecological smears does not improve NNS supported assessment time in liquid based cytology. Abstract Book 29th Eur Congr Cytol, Prague, 5–8 October 2003, p 239–240.
Moerenhout DAGM, Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, Meijer-Marres EM, Ploem JS, Boon ME: Solving the problem of unsatisfactory bloody smears by the Leiden liquid cytology method. Abstract Book 29th Eur Congr Cytol, Prague, 5–8 October 2003, p 106–107.
Duby JM, DiFurio MJ: Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer Cytopathol 2009;117:264–270.
Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Cooper MK, Johnson ML, Hawkins AP, Renshaw AA: Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the ThinPrep imaging system leads to significant reductions in screening accuracy. Cancer Cytopathol 2010; 118:75–82.
Bolger N, Heffron C, Regan I, Sweeney M, Kinsella S, McKeown M, Creighton G, Russell J, O’Leary J: Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system. Acta Cytol 2006;50:483–491.
Pacheco MC, Conley RC, Pennington DW, Bishop JW: Concordance between original screening and final diagnosis using imager vs manual screen of cervical liquid-based cytology slides. Acta Cytol 2008;52:575–578.
Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E, White S, Mauser N, Dabbs DJ: Introduction of the Thin Prep Imaging System (TIS): experience in a high volume academic practice. Cytojournal 2007;4:6.
Schledermann D, Hyldebrandt T, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B: Automated screening versus manual screening: a comparison of the ThinPrep imaging system and manual screening in a time study. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:348–352.
Zhang FF, Banks HW, Langford SM, Davey DD: Accuracy of ThinPrep Imaging System in detecting low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:773–776.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.