Comparison of SurePath® and ThinPrep® liquid-based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators
Article first published online: 9 NOV 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Volume 21, Issue 6, pages 374–378, December 2010
How to Cite
Wright, P. K., Marshall, J. and Desai, M. (2010), Comparison of SurePath® and ThinPrep® liquid-based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators. Cytopathology, 21: 374–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2010.00772.x
- Issue published online: 9 NOV 2010
- Article first published online: 9 NOV 2010
- Accepted for publication 12 April 2010
- cervical screening;
- liquid-based cytology;
- positive predictive value;
- atypical predictive value;
- total predictive value;
- performance indicators;
- cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
P. K. Wright, J. Marshall and M. Desai
Comparison of SurePath®and ThinPrep®liquid-based cervical cytology using positive predictive value, atypical predictive value and total predictive value as performance indicators
Objective: Two liquid-based cytology (LBC) systems are in widespread use in the UK: ThinPrep® and SurePath®. A number of studies have now compared LBC with conventional cytology in cervical screening. However, to date, we are aware of no studies that have compared ThinPrep® with SurePath® LBC. As the selection and use of specific diagnostic systems in a laboratory has significant clinical and economic implications, there is a clear need to compare directly existing LBC technology. The objective of this study was to compare ThinPrep® with SurePath® LBC in a single cytology laboratory using performance indicators.
Methods: Data were collected for all cervical cytology samples processed at Manchester Cytology Centre over a 1-year period. ThinPrep® LBC was compared with SurePath® LBC using positive predictive value (PPV), atypical predictive value (APV) and total predictive value (TPV), reflecting outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse for high-grade dyskaryosis (PPV), low-grade dyskaryosis or borderline (atypical) cytology (APV) and all (total) abnormal cytology (TPV).
Results: 2287 (out of 56 467) (ThinPrep®) and 586 (out of 22 824) (SurePath®) samples showed borderline or worse cytology after exclusion criteria. PPV, APV and TPV were within acceptable ranges for both ThinPrep® and SurePath®.
Conclusions: ThinPrep® and SurePath® were equivalent based on three performance indicators. We suggest that APV and TPV should be used as an adjunct to PPV and other methods of quality assurance for cervical screening.