Assessment of reprocessed ThinPrep cytology cases after glacial acetic acid wash procedure using the Hologic Genius Digital Diagnostics System.

Q2 Medicine
Lakshmi Harinath, Jonee Matsko, Amy Colaizzi, Xianxu Zeng, Esther Elishaev, Rohit Bhargava, Liron Pantanowitz, Chengquan Zhao
{"title":"Assessment of reprocessed ThinPrep cytology cases after glacial acetic acid wash procedure using the Hologic Genius Digital Diagnostics System.","authors":"Lakshmi Harinath, Jonee Matsko, Amy Colaizzi, Xianxu Zeng, Esther Elishaev, Rohit Bhargava, Liron Pantanowitz, Chengquan Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.jasc.2025.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study focuses on ThinPrep Pap tests with a low to borderline number of cells and the performance of AI-assisted digital systems in cases that have undergone the acetic acid wash procedure (AAW).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Four hundred sixty-two cases initially interpreted as unsatisfactory and finally interpreted as satisfactory after AAW procedure were included in the study. These ThinPrep Pap slides were scanned using the Genius Digital Diagnostic System (GDDS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall agreement between GDDS and Original ThinPrep Interpretation (OTPI) was 63.2% for diagnostic match (Negative for Intraepithelial Lesion, ASCUS, Low Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, Atypical Squamous Cells, High Grade, Atypical Glandular Cells, or unsatisfactory), and 66.0% when ASCUS + diagnoses are grouped. Out of the 462 cases, 364 (78.8%) were called Negative for Intraepithelial Lesion based upon the manual OTPI, as opposed to 310 (67.1%) reviewed using the GDDS. There were 17.5%, 1.3%, 0.9% and 1.5% cases called Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance, Low Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, Atypical Squamous Cells, High Grade Cannot be Excluded, and Atypical Glandular Cells respectively on OTPI, as opposed to 24.7%, 3.0%, 0.6% and 1.5% respectively by the GDDS. Only 3.0% of the cases were deemed unsatisfactory by GDDS. All the cases with high grade results in the subsequent cervical biopsy were diagnosed as at least Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance and above by the GDDS. The diagnostic agreement between GDDS and biopsy was 65.2% compared to 58.7% for OTPI, although this is not statistically significantly different, (χ<sup>2</sup> (1) = 0.415, P = 0.519).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results demonstrate that the GDDS can be successfully used to screen ThinPrep Pap Tests that have undergone the AAW procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":38262,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2025.05.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study focuses on ThinPrep Pap tests with a low to borderline number of cells and the performance of AI-assisted digital systems in cases that have undergone the acetic acid wash procedure (AAW).

Materials and methods: Four hundred sixty-two cases initially interpreted as unsatisfactory and finally interpreted as satisfactory after AAW procedure were included in the study. These ThinPrep Pap slides were scanned using the Genius Digital Diagnostic System (GDDS).

Results: Overall agreement between GDDS and Original ThinPrep Interpretation (OTPI) was 63.2% for diagnostic match (Negative for Intraepithelial Lesion, ASCUS, Low Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, Atypical Squamous Cells, High Grade, Atypical Glandular Cells, or unsatisfactory), and 66.0% when ASCUS + diagnoses are grouped. Out of the 462 cases, 364 (78.8%) were called Negative for Intraepithelial Lesion based upon the manual OTPI, as opposed to 310 (67.1%) reviewed using the GDDS. There were 17.5%, 1.3%, 0.9% and 1.5% cases called Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance, Low Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, Atypical Squamous Cells, High Grade Cannot be Excluded, and Atypical Glandular Cells respectively on OTPI, as opposed to 24.7%, 3.0%, 0.6% and 1.5% respectively by the GDDS. Only 3.0% of the cases were deemed unsatisfactory by GDDS. All the cases with high grade results in the subsequent cervical biopsy were diagnosed as at least Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance and above by the GDDS. The diagnostic agreement between GDDS and biopsy was 65.2% compared to 58.7% for OTPI, although this is not statistically significantly different, (χ2 (1) = 0.415, P = 0.519).

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the GDDS can be successfully used to screen ThinPrep Pap Tests that have undergone the AAW procedure.

使用Hologic Genius数字诊断系统评估冰醋酸洗涤后再处理的ThinPrep细胞学病例。
本研究的重点是在经历过醋酸洗涤程序(AAW)的病例中,细胞数量低至边缘的ThinPrep Pap试验和人工智能辅助数字系统的性能。材料与方法:本研究纳入462例经AAW程序最初解释为不满意,最终解释为满意的病例。使用Genius数字诊断系统(GDDS)扫描这些ThinPrep Pap切片。结果:GDDS与Original ThinPrep Interpretation (OTPI)在诊断匹配(上皮内病变、ASCUS、低级别鳞状上皮内病变、非典型鳞状细胞、高级别、非典型腺细胞或不满意)方面的总体一致性为63.2%,在ASCUS +诊断分组时的总体一致性为66.0%。在462例病例中,364例(78.8%)基于手动OTPI被称为上皮内病变阴性,而使用GDDS审查的310例(67.1%)。OTPI中未确定意义的非典型鳞状细胞、低级别鳞状上皮内病变、非典型鳞状细胞、不能排除高级别鳞状细胞和非典型腺体细胞分别占17.5%、1.3%、0.9%和1.5%,而GDDS中这一比例分别为24.7%、3.0%、0.6%和1.5%。只有3.0%的病例被GDDS认为不满意。所有宫颈活检分级高的病例均被GDDS诊断为不典型鳞状细胞(不确定意义及以上)。GDDS与活检诊断的符合率为65.2%,而OTPI的符合率为58.7%,差异无统计学意义(χ2 (1) = 0.415, P = 0.519)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,GDDS可以成功地用于筛选经过AAW程序的薄准备巴氏试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology
Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
40 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信