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: Is there a role for the thinprep imaging system in reporting anal cytology?
    Author: Margaret Roberts J, Jin F, Ekman D, Kay Adams M, Lindsay McDonald R, Kathleen Thurloe J, Richards A, Mary Poynten I, Law C, Kincaid Fairley C, John Hillman R, Tabrizi SN, Marie Cornall A, James Templeton D, Marie Garland S, Edwin Grulich A, Farnsworth A.
    Journal: Diagn Cytopathol; 2016 May; 44(5):384-8. PubMed ID: 26876374.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) is an accurate time-saving method of reading cervical ThinPrep slides in screening programs. As anal and cervical cytology are morphologically similar, TIS can potentially be used for anal cytology. We assessed the performance of TIS on anal ThinPrep slides from homosexual men in a natural history study of human papillomavirus-related anal abnormalities. METHODS: Four hundred nineteen anal cytology slides were processed by TIS and classified by a cytologist as either No further review (slide archived) or Manual review (slide requiring full manual screen). The results were compared with the original manual screening report for all slides and specifically for those screening episodes accompanied by a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) on concurrent biopsy. RESULTS: One hundred seventy six of 419 (42.0%) slides were classified as No further review, with a trend of decreasing proportions as the degree of severity of the cytological abnormality increased. Thirteen (27.7%) slides with an original unsatisfactory report were classified as No further review. Eighty two (92.1%) of those with biopsy HSIL and cytological abnormality were classified for Manual review, including all 45 (100%) with cytological HSIL. CONCLUSION: The cervical algorithm of TIS performed best on anal samples when HSIL was present both cytologically and histologically. The 27.7% unsatisfactory slides classified as No further review may indicate need for use of different criteria from cervical cytology. Because of the high prevalence of abnormalities, and hence the large proportion of slides needing manual review, the cytologist time-saving would compare unfavorably with use of TIS in cervical screening.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]