Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

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

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

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

Acta Cytologica 2014;58:469-477

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

Author affiliations

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

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.


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


  1. Package insert for BD FocalPoint GS imaging system. BD Part No. 779-06922-00 Rev. D.
  2. Package insert for the ThinPrep imaging system. Hologic Part No. 86093-001 Rev. E.00.
  3. Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al: ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. Am J Clin Pathol 2002;118:714-718.
  4. Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Chan SF, Richards A, Farnsworth A: Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007;335:31.
  5. Thompson SK, Mason E: How many slides? Documented cytotechnologist workload. Lab Med 2004;35:742-744.
  6. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al: Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-819.
  7. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ: Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998;42:209-213.
  8. Alaghehbandan R: Performance of the CellSolutions Glucyte liquid-based cytology in comparison with the ThinPrep and SurePath methods. Acta Cytol 2013;57:189-197.
  9. Zhao C, Florea A, Onisko A, Austin R: Histologic follow-up results in 662 patients with Pap test findings of atypical glandular cells: results from a large academic womens hospital laboratory employing sensitive screening methods. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:383-389.
  10. Pan Q, Hu S, Zhang X: Pooled analysis of the performance of liquid-based cytology in population-based cervical cancer screening studies in China. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:473-482.
  11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cobas HPV Test - P100020/S008: Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED). www. accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/P100020S008b.pdf.
  12. Arbyn M, von Karsa L: Introduction; in Arbyn M, Antilla A, Jordon J, et al (eds): European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Screening, ed 2. Luxembourg, European Communities, 2008, p 4.

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: https://www.karger.com/ACY