Page 125 - 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
5170 consecutive Pap Sensitivity and Papnet: Quality Score=7
smears specificity to known Se 86.1% Ref. Std: 0
abnormals Sp (ASCUS+) = 82% Blind: 2
Sp (LSIL+) = 93.6% Verification: 1
GS: cytology (single Consecutive: 1
independent Manual screening: Spectrum: 1
cytopathologist) for Se = 77.3% Publication: 1 Industry: 1
discrepant cases only Sp (ASCUS+) = 77.3%
Sp (LSIL+) = 92.5%

Performance among manually
screened negative slides not
reported

5037 consecutive Pap No. of FN/No. Papnet: Quality Score=7
tests for cervical cancer rescreened 17/4574 = 0.37% Ref. Std: 0
screening (smears from Blind: 2
colposcopy or GS: cytology (panel). Verification: 1
gynecology-oncology Verification of Consecutive: 1
clinics excluded), 4574 discrepant cases Spectrum: 1
of which were negative Publication: 1 Industry: 1
on manual screening

1000 negative smears No. of FN/No. Results not given for false Quality Score=2
seeded with 20 “difficult” rescreened negative detection Ref. Std: 0
cases Blind: 0
Sensitivity to known Se(known abn ASCUS+) 19/20 Verification: 0
abnormals (95%) Consecutive: 0
Rapid manual rescreening Spectrum: 0
Se (known abn ASCUS+) = Publication: 1
9/20 (45%) Industry: 1

C-31