Page 137 - 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
ThinPrep 2000
1954 slides: 895 Blind interpretation Unable to get estimate of Quality Score=4.5
discrepant results, 759 specificity because no test Ref. Std: 0
concordant positives, Sensitivity of ThinPrep positives verified with histology Blind: 2
and 300 random and conventional Verification: 1
negatives from clinical smear as compared to Se ThinPrep (HSIL)=88.6% Consecutive: 0
trial most abnormal Se conventional smear Spectrum: 0
reference cytology (HSIL)=81.2% Publication: 1 Industry: .5
diagnosis
No difference in HPV detection
PPV estimated by in smears called abnormal
comparison with HPV between conventional smear
type and ThinPrep

More cancer-associated HPV
types seen in ThinPrep+
patients.
Very few HPV+ in 300 random
test-negatives

C-43