Objective: The purpose of this study is to report our experience with the implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) in a tertiary hospital in Korea and to evaluate the effectiveness of the TIS compared to manual methods in the screening of cervical cytology. Study Design: Detection rates of cervical abnormalities in the pre- and post-TIS periods (January 2009 to February 2010 and March 2010 to December 2010, respectively) were compared. Follow-up cytological and histological results with concurrent or subsequent human papillomavirus (HPV) tests were retrieved. Results: ASC-US, ASC-H, LSIL, and HSIL were more frequently detected in the post-TIS period than in the pre-TIS period (p < 0.005). The proportions of correlated cases of ASC-US were 42.2 and 40.4% in the pre- and post-TIS periods, respectively. The detection rates of high-risk types of HPV in ASC-US were not significantly different between the two groups. The proportion of correlated biopsy for ASC-H, LSIL, and HSIL was similar in both periods. HPV positivity for ASC-H, LSIL, and HSIL showed no significant change between the two periods. Conclusion: The TIS is potentially useful for the detection of abnormal cervical cytology on the basis of the increased detection rate of squamous cell abnormalities, with a relatively similar proportion of correlated cases compared to the manual screening method.

Keywords:
ThinPrep Imaging System, Manual screening, Cervical cytology, Human papillomavirus
1.
Dawson AE: Can we change the way we screen? The ThinPrep Imaging System. Cancer 2004;102:340–344.
2.
Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, et al: Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:281–287.
3.
Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K: Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 2006;50:309–311.
4.
Barroeta JE, Reilly ME, Steinhoff MM, et al: Utility of the Thin Prep Imaging System® in the detection of squamous intraepithelial abnormalities on retrospective evaluation: can we trust the imager? Diagn Cytopathol 2010, E-pub ahead of print.
5.
Chivukula M, Saad RS, Elishaev E, et al: Introduction of the Thin Prep Imaging System (TIS): experience in a high volume academic practice. Cytojournal 2007;4:6.
6.
Davey E, d’Assuncao J, Irwig L, et al: Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31.
7.
Lozano R: Comparison of computer-assisted and manual screening of cervical cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:134–138.
8.
Miller FS, Nagel LE, Kenny-Moynihan MB: Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a high-volume metropolitan laboratory. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:213–217.
9.
Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, et al: A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:96–102.
10.
Pacheco MC, Conley RC, Pennington DW, et al: Concordance between original screening and final diagnosis using imager vs. manual screen of cervical liquid-based cytology slides. Acta Cytol 2008;52:575–578.
11.
Papillo JL, St John TL, Leiman G: Effectiveness of the ThinPrep Imaging System: clinical experience in a low risk screening population. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:155–160.
12.
Duby JM, DiFurio MJ: Implementation of the ThinPrep Imaging System in a tertiary military medical center. Cancer 2009;117:264–270.
13.
Halford JA, Batty T, Boost T, et al: Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:318–326.
14.
Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, et al: MAVARIC – a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2011;15:iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–170.
15.
Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G, et al: Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:56–64.
16.
Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM: Sensitivity and workload for manual and automated gynecologic screening: best current estimates. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;39:647–650.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.