Young investigator challenge: Comparison of 2 different methods of manual slide screening in semiautomated gynecologic cytology

1Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Negative gynecologic cytology cases (ie, those diagnosed as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy) are manually reviewed by 2 methods using semiautomated screening: 1) immediate full slide review (FSR) after fields-of-view analysis (FOV) (FOV + FSR), and 2) quality-assurance/high-risk, quintile-directed full manual review (FMR). Data supporting current guidelines were limited. The authors investigated FMR, FOV + FSR, and the review process in general. METHODS Gynecologic cytology cases from 2009 to 2014 at Massachusetts General Hospital were analyzed. The data comprised 93,169 patients, 194,656 specimens, and 49,979 human papillomavirus (HPV) tests. RESULTS In patients who underwent FMR, the epithelial cell abnormality (ECA) rate was correlated with the HPV-positive rate (correlation coefficient [r2] = 0.82; Y = 0.19X + 0.02), and both rates decreased with age. For patients who underwent FOV + FSR, the ECA rate was also related to the HPV-positive rate (r2 = 0.86; Y = 0.39X + 0.11), and both rates decreased with age. The FMR group had similar HPV-positive rates compared to the FOV + FSR group (2%-52% vs 9%-68%, respectively). HPV-positive patients had a higher risk of ECA than HPV-negative patients (40% vs 8%; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vaickus, L. J., Wilbur, D. C., Sweeney, B. J., & Renshaw, A. A. (2015). Young investigator challenge: Comparison of 2 different methods of manual slide screening in semiautomated gynecologic cytology. Cancer Cytopathology, 123(11), 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21581

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free