Screening parameters for ThinPrep((R)) and conventional gynecologic cytology via automated monitoring

OBJECTIVE: To compare diagnostic discrepancies and screening parameters bet ween conventional (CP) and ThinPrep(R) (TP) (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) cervicovanginal samples using Pathfinder(R) (Neopat h, Redmond, Washington, U.S.A.). STUDY DESIGN: Pathfinder(R) tracked average screening time, percent slide c overage and percent overlap of viewing fields for CP and TP. False negative rate (FNR) mns determined by rescreening 10% of random and high-risk negat ive cases. CP and TP FNR with Pathfinder(R) were compared to control groups without Pathfinder.(R) RESULTS: A total of 46,393 Pathfinder(R) cases were evaluated (43,354 CP, 3 ,039 TP) as compared to 62,981 without Pathfinder(R) (60,307 CP, 2,674 TP). FNR was calculated for 12,983 negatives. Using Pathfinder(R) resulted in a significant reduction in FNR for CP atypicalsquamous cells of undetermined significance and atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance cas es. No decrease in FNR teas observed for CP squamous intraepithelial lesion s or for TP cases. TP slides were screened 66 seconds faster on average tha n CP. With electronic feedback, mean percent slide coverage and percent ove rlap were similar between CP and TP cases. Without feedback, coverage dropp ed and overlap increased slightly for both CP and TP. Technologists screene d faster with feedback, saving an average of 50 seconds on CP and 41 second s on TP. CONCLUSION: Pathfinder(R) significantly reduced FNR for CP but not TP. Tech nologists screened TP significantly faster than CP while maintaining simila r coverage and overlap. Pathfinder(R) feedback itself may decrease screenin g time.