> Detailanzeige

Ozlem, Aydin; Umit, Ince

Comparative analysis of cervical cytology screening methods and staining protocols for detection rate and accurate interpretation of ASC‐H: Data from a high‐volume laboratory in Turkey

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Comparative analysis of cervical cytology screening methods and staining protocols for detection rate and accurate interpretation of ASC‐H: Data from a high‐volume laboratory in Turkey
  • Beteiligte: Ozlem, Aydin; Umit, Ince
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2015
  • Erschienen in: Diagnostic Cytopathology, 43 (2015) 11, Seite 863-869
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1002/dc.23311
  • ISSN: 8755-1039; 1097-0339
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: BackgroundThis study evaluated the effectiveness of the ThinPrep® Imaging System (TIS) and ThinPrep® Pap Stain (TPPS). A comparative analysis was conducted to determine the detection rates of atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC‐H), the ASC:squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) ratio, biopsy follow‐up for ASC‐H in terms of the screening method used (manual screening [MS] vs. TIS screening [TISS]) and the staining protocol (regular Pap stain [RPS] vs. TPPS).MethodsThis study was performed over two periods. The RPS period included manually screened slides, whereas the TPPS period included TIS + manually screened slides. All data from the study periods were compared using statistical analysis.ResultsThe detection rate of ASC‐H was significantly higher during the TPPS period than during the RPS period (0.49% vs. 0.23%); this finding is in contrast to the insignificant difference between the screening method periods. The positive predictive value (PPV) of ASC‐H cytodiagnosis for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more severe histologies was significantly different between manually screened and TIS slides (22.10% vs. 38.55%), in contrast to an insignificant difference between RPS and TPPS periods (37.14% vs. 29.77%).ConclusionImplementation of the TIS did not change the ASC‐H detection rates appreciably. However, the new technology improved PPV for ASC‐H cytodiagnosis and enabled the detection of true disease. Our laboratory statistics indicate that the TPPS is not a superior staining protocol and did not increase our diagnostic accuracy for ASC‐H compared with RPS. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2015;43:863–869. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.