Objective: A double-blind study was conducted to compare the performance of the new BestPrep® (CellSolutions) liquid-based thin-layer Papanicolaou (Pap) test with ThinPrep® (Hologic). Study Design: Samples from the study patients (n = 105) were collected twice in the same encounter with the ThinPrep sample always taken first and the BestPrep sample collected second. Slides were prepared according to both manufacturers' protocols and evaluated using manual microscopic review and the BestCyte® cell sorter imaging system (CellSolutions). Diagnostic truth for each case was determined by independent manual review of both slides by multiple pathologists and histology when available. The presence of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was the threshold for positive for sensitivity and specificity calculations. Results: BestPrep and ThinPrep, by manual review, had sensitivities for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cases of 100 and 95.6%, respectively. Using the BestCyte cell sorter, both had 100% sensitivity. For the same HSIL cases, the digene HC2 high-risk human papillomavirus DNA test had sensitivities of 100% (BestPrep) and 95.6% (ThinPrep). Specificities were 71.4% (BestPrep) and 54.8% (ThinPrep). Conclusions: BestPrep was equivalent to ThinPrep for manual review even though BestPrep was always the second sample collected. The BestCyte cell sorter provides a practical alternative to manual review for both BestPrep and ThinPrep slides.

Keywords:
BestCyte®, BestPrep®, Cancer screening, Cervix, Cytology, Human papillomavirus, Imaging systems
1.
Package insert for BD FocalPoint GS imaging system. BD Part No. 779-06922-00 Rev. D.
2.
Package insert for the ThinPrep imaging system. Hologic Part No. 86093-001 Rev. E.00.
3.
Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al: ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:714-718.
4.
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.
5.
Thompson SK, Mason E: How many slides? Documented cytotechnologist workload. Lab Med 2004;35:742-744.
6.
Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al: Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-819.
7.
Bolick DR, Hellman DJ: Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998;42:209-213.
8.
Alaghehbandan R: Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte liquid-based cytology in comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath methods. Acta Cytol 2013;57:189-197.
9.
Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, Austin R: Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-389.
10.
Pan Q, Hu S, Zhang X: Pooled analysis of the performance of liquid-based cytology in population-based cervical cancer screening studies in China. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:473-482.
11.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cobas HPV Test - P100020/S008: Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). www. accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/P100020S008b.pdf.
12.
Arbyn M, von Karsa L: Introduction; in Arbyn M, Antilla A, Jordon J, et al (eds): European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Screening, ed 2. Luxembourg, European Communities, 2008, p 4.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
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.