Objective: To evaluate a fully automated processing system (TACAS™ Pro) for liquid-based procedures (LBPs). Methods and Materials: Materials were 3,483 and additionally 502 specimens that were taken at Kanagawa Health Service Association. Specimens obtained with a Cervex-Brush® were first smeared to glass slides using one side of the brush and then processed to TACAS Pro. Results: (1) The microscopy watching time per normal case was 3.65 ± 0.85 min in the conventional procedure, whereas in the LBP it was 1.95 ± 0.60 min, and the latter reduced workload to 53%. (2) The handling time of TACAS Pro per day was 2 h and 25.8 min. The workload at a laboratory offset it and revealed the work saving to be 63.8%. (3) Unsatisfactory rates were 0% in the conventional procedure, whereas in the LBP it was 1.88% at first. The latter rate decreased to 0.5% after system improvement. (4) Specimens which may disturb microscopy analysis were found in 1.06%, including 3 cases of possible carry-over of cells to the following slides. An additional study with the revised system confirmed no carry-over. (5) Incidences of abnormal cytology were consistent between the two methods. Conclusions: The revised automated processing system TACAS Pro is a feasible and useful LBP and reduces the workload of cytology laboratories.

1.
Kuramoto H, Iwami Y, Sugimoto N, Kato C, Sugahara T, Iida M: Application of a new liquid-based procedure (TACAS) for the screening of cervical cancer: a preliminary study. Acta Cytol 2012;56:74-79.
2.
Kuramoto H, Banno M, Hori M, Miyagawa J, Iida M, Kawaguchi M: Optimal sampling devices for liquid-based procedure in screening for cervical cancer - comparison between cotton stick/Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush. Acta Cytol 2013;57:153-158.
3.
Namce KV: Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital: a ten-year experience. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:148-153.
4.
Akamatsu S, Himeji Y, Ikuta N, et al: Satisfactoriness and disease detection in the screening specimens of cervical cancer - comparison between liquid-based and conventional methods (in Japanese). Jpn J Clin Cytol 2008;47:420-424.
5.
Hutchinson ML, Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, et al: Homogenous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep® Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:215-219.
6.
Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, et al: Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-284.
7.
Hatch KD, Sheets E, Kennedy A, et al: Multicenter direct-to-vial evaluation of a liquid-based Pap test. J Lower Gen Tract Dis 2004;8:308-312.
8.
Park J, Jung EH, Kim C, et al: Direct-to-vial comparison of a new liquid-based cytology system, liquid-PREP versus the conventional Pap smear. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:488-492.
9.
Ferris DG, Berrey MM, Ellis KE, et al: The optimal technique for obtaining a Papanicolaou smear with the Cervex-Brush. J Fam Pract 1992;34:276-280.
10.
Solomon D, Nayar R (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting the Cervical Cytology, ed 2. New York, Springer, 2004.
11.
Japanese Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Understanding the Reporting Method of Cervical Cytology Based on the Bethesda System (in Japanese). Tokyo, Chugai Med, 2008.
12.
McGoogan E, Reith A: Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screening? Overview and evaluation of systems available. Acta Cytol 1995;40:107-119.
13.
Dowie R, Stoykova B, Crawford D, et al: Liquid-based cytology can improve efficacy of cervical smear readers: evidence from timing surveys in two NHS cytology laboratories. Cytopathology 2006;17:65-72.
14.
López-Cuervo JE, Beltran EM, Lopez JLC, et al: Preliminary study of a new, fully automated system for liquid-based cytology: the NovaPrep® processor system. Acta Cytol 2011;55:281-286.
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.