Objective: To assess the introduction of computer-assisted Pap test screening in cervical cancer screening. Various scenarios are considered: conventional and liquid-based cytology (LBC) slides, fully automatic instrumentation (Becton Dickinson FocalPoint™ Slide Profiler and Hologic ThinPrep® Imaging System), and semiautomatic scanner (Hologic Integrated Imager I-Squared). Methods: A working group was formed that included researchers from the largest centers already using instrumentation. A questionnaire on laboratory management and on social/ethical issues and annual workload was proposed. Prices for the technology were obtained directly from the producers; costs were calculated from observed and literature data. The scope of the report and final draft were submitted to a consulting committee of stakeholders. Results: The break-even point was found to be 49,000 cases/year, if conventional slides were used, while it was near the theoretical maximum capacity, 70,000 cases/year, with LBC slides. Efficiency increased with the volume of slides. Screening time decreased by two thirds for conventional slides and by less than half for LBC slides. Acceptance of the instrumentation by the users was good. Conclusions: Computer-assisted screening may increase productivity even if in most situations it will mean additional costs. Furthermore, primary screening with human papillomavirus tests will drastically reduce the need for Pap test reading.

Keywords:
Cervical cancer screening, Computer-assisted screening, Cytology, Health technology assessment
© 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.