Page 139 - 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
8636 in final analysis, ThinPrep® results: Prevalence Quality Score=6
non-virgin, non- ASCUS, LGSIL, HSIL, (LGSIL on colposcopy) Ref. Std:1
pregnant women carcinoma =186/8636=2.2% Blind:0
Verification:1
Aged (not given) GS: colposcopy- Se (ASCUS ThinPrep®, LGSIL Consecutive:2
directed biopsy: colp)=31.8% Spectrum:1
reported as equivocal, Sp ASCUS ThinPrep®, LGSIL Publication:1
LSIL, HSIL, cancer colp)=93.2% Industry:1

Se (LGSIL ThinPrep®, LGSIL
colp)=78.7%
Sp (LGSIL ThinPrep®, LGSIL
colp)=100%

Prevalence
(HGSIL on colposcopy)
=126/8636=1.5%

Se (LGSIL ThinPrep®, HGSIL
colp)=71.9%
Sp (LGSIL ThinPrep®, HGSIL
colp)=100%

Se (HGSIL ThinPrep®, HGSIL
colp)=89.4%
Sp (HGSIL ThinPrep®, HGSIL
colp)=99.9%

Limits: uncertain time between
Pap and colposcopy

39,864 ThinPrep® Pap results: Prevalence: Quality Score=8
slides and 130,381 Bethesda LSIL=117/509=23.0% Ref. Std:1
conventional Paps HSIL=196/509=38.5% Blind:2
Histologic diagnosis: Ca=6/509=1.2% Verification:0
Reference standard negative, inconclusive, Consecutive:2
results available for 509 LSIL, HSIL No gold standard verification of Spectrum:1
ThinPrep® negatives Publication:1
Industry:1

C-45