Reliability of sparing papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as No Further Review at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening
✍ Scribed by Troni, Grazia Maria ;Cariaggi, Maria Paola ;Bulgaresi, Paolo ;Houssami, Nehmat ;Ciatto, Stefano
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2007
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 91 KB
- Volume
- 111
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0008-543X
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
BACKGROUND. AutoPap-assisted smear reading has been proposed prior to conventional manual reading; the latter may be unnecessary for cases reported as No Further Review (NFR) and would be required for cases reported as Review (REV).
METHODS.
The authors evaluated comparable concurrent screening cohorts who were undergoing a conventional manual (CONV) or an AutoPap-assisted smear reading within the same screening program. The authors evaluated the prevalence of CIN2þ at repeat screening in subjects 1) with a negative report at conventional Papanicolaou test (CONVÀ ¼ 9605), 2) with a REV report at AutoPap, followed by a negative conventional reading (REVÀ ¼ 17,576), and 3) with a NFR report at AutoPap, followed by a negative rapid review (NFRÀ ¼ 3477) at previous (baseline) screening.