Page 123 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review

Appendix C. Evidence Tables

Evidence Table 2. New Methods for Preparing or Evaluating Cervical Cytology (cont'd)

Patients & Methods Outcomes Measured Study Results & Limitations* Quality Considerations
Papnet
2238 smears screened No. of FN/ No Papnet rescreening resulted in Quality Score=5
manually as negative. rescreened 91/2238 “review,” Ref. Std: 0
No patients with known 45/2238 “inadequate,” Blind: 0
prior dysplasia, radiation GS: cytology (single 2102/2238 negative (94%) Verification: 1
or chemo-therapy, post- independent Consecutive: 1
menopausal vaginal cytopathologist) only Manual rescreen of 91 atypical Spectrum: 1
bleeding; symptomatic for slides called cases found: Publication: 1
unsatisfactory or 5/91 ASCUS or LSIL. Industry: 1
atypical on Papnet 86/91 negative (20% BCC)
review Detection rate 0.2%

Manual rescreen of 45
inadequate found:
36/45 negative,
9 truly unsatisfactory

500 previously screened No. of FN/No. FN yield: 15/450 (3.3%) Quality Score=7
Pap smears; 435 of rescreened Ref. Std: 0
which had been Blind: 2
screened previously as GS: cytology (single Verification: 1
normal independent Consecutive: 1
pathologist). Spectrum: 1
Discrepant cases Publication: 1
reviewed Industry: 1

54,658 Pap smears No. of FN/No. Papnet identified 266/54658 = Quality Score=7
initially read as normal, rescreened 0.49% (32 ASCUS, 217 LSIL, Ref. Std: 0
and 1022 Pap smears 17 HSIL) Blind: 2
classified as abnormal GS: cytology (single Verification: 1
cytopathologist). Papnet detected all 122 HSIL Consecutive: 1
Histological validation and ICC, but failed to detect Spectrum: 1
for small subset of 112 (14 ASCUS, 98 LSIL) of Publication: 1 Industry: 1
Papnet positive 1022 known positive smears
smears

C-29