Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot Password? Reset your password

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login (Shibboleth)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Table of Contents
Vol. 58, No. 5, 2014
Issue release date: September – October
Section title: Techniques
Acta Cytologica 2014;58:469-477
(DOI:10.1159/000367837)

Evaluation of CellSolutions BestPrep® Automated Thin-Layer Liquid-Based Cytology Papanicolaou Slide Preparation and BestCyte® Cell Sorter Imaging System

Delga A.a · Goffin F.b · Kridelka F.b · Marée R.c · Lambert C.a · Delvenne P.a
Departments of aPathology and bObstetrics and Gynecology, CHU Sart Tilman, and cGIGA Bioinformatics Platform and Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
email Corresponding Author

Correspondence to: Dr. Philippe Delvenne

Department of Pathology, CHU Sart Tilman

University of Liège

BE-4000 Liège (Belgium)

E-Mail p.delvenne@chu.ulg.ac.be

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information










I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Abstract

Objective: A double-blind study was conducted to compare the performance of the new BestPrep® (CellSolutions) liquid-based thin-layer Papanicolaou (Pap) test with ThinPrep® (Hologic). Study Design: Samples from the study patients (n = 105) were collected twice in the same encounter with the ThinPrep sample always taken first and the BestPrep sample collected second. Slides were prepared according to both manufacturers' protocols and evaluated using manual microscopic review and the BestCyte® cell sorter imaging system (CellSolutions). Diagnostic truth for each case was determined by independent manual review of both slides by multiple pathologists and histology when available. The presence of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was the threshold for positive for sensitivity and specificity calculations. Results: BestPrep and ThinPrep, by manual review, had sensitivities for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) cases of 100 and 95.6%, respectively. Using the BestCyte cell sorter, both had 100% sensitivity. For the same HSIL cases, the digene HC2 high-risk human papillomavirus DNA test had sensitivities of 100% (BestPrep) and 95.6% (ThinPrep). Specificities were 71.4% (BestPrep) and 54.8% (ThinPrep). Conclusions: BestPrep was equivalent to ThinPrep for manual review even though BestPrep was always the second sample collected. The BestCyte cell sorter provides a practical alternative to manual review for both BestPrep and ThinPrep slides.

© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Techniques

Received: May 16, 2014
Accepted: August 15, 2014
Published online: September 27, 2014

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 9

ISSN: 0001-5547 (Print)
eISSN: 1938-2650 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/ACY


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.