These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effectiveness of the SurePath liquid-based Pap test in automated screening and in detection of HSIL.
    Author: Cengel KA, Day SJ, Davis-Devine S, Adams CL, Madison-Henness D, Hartman ME, Freund GG.
    Journal: Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Nov; 29(5):250-5. PubMed ID: 14595790.
    Abstract:
    We have shown that SurePath when compared to conventional Paps fails to increase HSIL detection. In this study, assessment of test performance characteristics for the FocalPoint showed that sensitivity was 96% when manual screening was used as the "gold standard." When cervical biopsy, however, was used as the "gold standard" FocalPoint sensitivity decreased to 93%, which was the same as manual screening. Examination of the FocalPoint "no further review" cases showed that 4/296 were SIL. To understand better the implication of an SIL diagnosis, cervical biopsies generated from SurePath and conventional Paps were compared. Conventional Paps diagnosed as LSIL had a biopsy LSIL:HSIL ratio of 3.1/1, while SurePath Paps had a biopsy LSIL:HSIL ratio of 1.5/1. These results indicate that when cervical biopsy is used as the "gold standard," FocalPoint and manual screening of SurePath Paps have similar test performance but that the FocalPoint can fail to detect LSIL. Importantly, LSIL in a SurePath Pap is 1.6 times more likely to be HSIL on biopsy than LSIL in a conventional Pap.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]