Premium
Comparison of SurePath ® and ThinPrep ® liquid‐based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators
Author(s) -
Wright P. K.,
Marshall J.,
Desai M.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
cytopathology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.512
H-Index - 48
eISSN - 1365-2303
pISSN - 0956-5507
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00772.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cytology , cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , predictive value , liquid based cytology , gynecology , cervical screening , obstetrics , cervical cancer , pathology , cancer
P. K. Wright, J. Marshall and M. Desai Comparison of SurePath®and ThinPrep®liquid‐based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicatorsObjective: Two liquid‐based cytology (LBC) systems are in widespread use in the UK: ThinPrep ® and SurePath ® . A number of studies have now compared LBC with conventional cytology in cervical screening. However, to date, we are aware of no studies that have compared ThinPrep ® with SurePath ® LBC. As the selection and use of specific diagnostic systems in a laboratory has significant clinical and economic implications, there is a clear need to compare directly existing LBC technology. The objective of this study was to compare ThinPrep ® with SurePath ® LBC in a single cytology laboratory using performance indicators. Methods: Data were collected for all cervical cytology samples processed at Manchester Cytology Centre over a 1‐year period. ThinPrep ® LBC was compared with SurePath ® LBC using positive predictive value (PPV), atypical predictive value (APV) and total predictive value (TPV), reflecting outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse for high‐grade dyskaryosis (PPV), low‐grade dyskaryosis or borderline (atypical) cytology (APV) and all (total) abnormal cytology (TPV). Results: 2287 (out of 56 467) (ThinPrep ® ) and 586 (out of 22 824) (SurePath ® ) samples showed borderline or worse cytology after exclusion criteria. PPV, APV and TPV were within acceptable ranges for both ThinPrep ® and SurePath ® . Conclusions: ThinPrep ® and SurePath ® were equivalent based on three performance indicators. We suggest that APV and TPV should be used as an adjunct to PPV and other methods of quality assurance for cervical screening.