Page 127 - 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
1200 smears No. of FN/No. Papnet rescreening: Quality Score=7
516 with histologically rescreened Se(LSIL+) = 26/29 = 89% Ref. Std: 2
proven diagnosis; 29 of Blind: 2
which had been GS: Histological In primary screening: Verification: 1
manually screened as validation. 2 independent Papnet reviews Consecutive: 0
negative No validation of test identified 435 & 469 of 516 Spectrum: 0
negatives (91% & 84%) Publication: 1
Industry: 1
Manual screening:
403/561 (78.1%)
Relative TPR 1.08-1.16
Papnet compared to manual
screening

160 women with Blind interpretation Prevalence(CIN1)=69/160=43 Quality Score=10
colposcopy and biopsy % Ref. Std: 2
within 1 year of a smear Papnet diagnosis Se (LSIL,CIN1)=26/69=38% Blind: 2
initially reported as (ASCUS/ AGUS, LSIL, Sp (LSIL,CIN1)=84/91=92% Verification: 2
ASCUS HSIL, Ca) Consecutive: 2
Prevalence(CIN2/3)=22/160= Spectrum: 1
GS: colposcope- 14% Publication: 1
directed biopsy Se (LSIL,CIN2/3)=9/22=41% Industry: 0
(normal, HPV, CIN 1, Sp
CIN 2, CIN 3) (LSIL,CIN2/3)=114/138=83%

Limitations: Narrow spectrum
of disease (ASCUS/AGUS)

2293 smears underwent No. of FN/No. Papnet: Quality Score=4
Papnet rescreening; rescreened FN yield (ASCUS+)142/2293 Ref. Std: 0
13761 underwent (6.3%) Blind: 0
manual rescreening GS: cytology (single FN yield (LSIL+) 48/2293 Verification: 1
pathologist). (2.1%) Consecutive: 1
No verification of Spectrum: 1
rescreen negatives. Manual rescreen: Publication: 1
No histological FN yield (ASCUS+) 82/13761 Industry: 0
validation (0.6%)
FN yield (LSIL+) 36/13761
(0.3%)

C-33