You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 279 No. 3, January 21, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Toward Optimal Laboratory Use
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (51)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
 •Alert me on articles by topic

PAPNET-Assisted Rescreening of Cervical Smears

Cost and Accuracy Compared With a 100% Manual Rescreening Strategy

Timothy J. O'Leary, MD, PhD; Miguel Tellado, MD; Sally-Beth Buckner, SCT, (ASCP); Izzat S. Ali, CT, (ASCP); Angelica Stevens, CT, (ASCP); Curtis W. Ollayos, MD

JAMA. 1998;279:235-237.

Context.— The Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several devices that use computerized image analysis to rescreen Papanicolaou (Pap) smears that have already been examined by cytotechnologists. Physicians and laboratories must decide whether the utility of these devices justifies the cost.

Objective.— To determine the effectiveness and cost of PAPNET-assisted rescreening in identifying cervical abnormalities not identified by manual rescreening.

Design.— PAPNET-assisted rescreening of 5478 Pap smears obtained in 1994 and 1995 previously identified as "within normal limits" or "benign changes" on both initial and random screening.

Patients.— Female service members and dependents aged 12 to 88 years.

Setting.— Air Force clinics in the United States and Japan.

Intervention.— Rescreening of Pap smears by PAPNET, followed by reevaluation of abnormal smears by the consensus panel, consisting of 3 cytotechnologists and 3 pathologists.

Main Outcome Measures.— Proportion of Pap smears initially screened as normal identified as abnormal by both PAPNET and consensus panel; costs of rescreening.

Results.— PAPNET screening identified 1614 (29%) slides requiring additional microscopic review. On further review, 448 (8% of total) had possibly abnormal cells. Ultimately, 11 of these cases were reviewed by the consensus panel for potentially atypical cells. Of these 11 cases, 5 were reclassified as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and 1 as atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS). No additional squamous intraepithelial neoplasia (SIL) was identified in these smears; the patient with a diagnosis of AGUS on rescreening was diagnosed as having a low-grade SIL (LSIL) on follow-up. Costs were $5825 to $33781 for each additional ASCUS or AGUS diagnosis. A cost of $17475 to $101343 is expected for each case of LSIL identified by PAPNET-assisted rescreening and not by traditional manual rescreening.

Conclusions.— PAPNET-assisted rescreening identified a few more cases of ASCUS than did manual rescreening, but at a relatively high cost. The costs of rescreening should be carefully compared with the expected efficacy in reducing cervical cancer mortality.


From the Department of Cellular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC.


RELATED ARTICLE

Making the Most of Pap Testing
Alan M. Garber
JAMA. 1998;279(3):240-241.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Predicting the Presence of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Comparative Analysis of the Artificial Neural Network, Logistic Regression, and Threshold Models
Eng
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2002;179:869-874.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effectiveness of 3 Methods to Enhance the Sensitivity of Papanicolaou Testing
Brown and Garber
JAMA 1999;281:347-353.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reducing Mortality Due to Cervical Cancer: PAPNET Fails the Test
Melnikow and Nuovo
Arch Fam Med 1999;8:56-57.
FULL TEXT  

Rescreening of Cervical Papanicolaou Smears Using PAPNET
Greenberg et al.
JAMA 1998;279:1785-1788.
FULL TEXT  

AUTOMATED CERVICAL CYTOLOGY: IS IT REALLY BETTER?
JWatch General 1998;1998:8-8.
FULL TEXT  

Making the Most of Pap Testing
Garber
JAMA 1998;279:240-241.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.