BD Diagnostics
Diagnostic Systems – TriPath
Bibliography
Scientific Journal and Reference Publication List for
Peer Reviewed and Non–Peer Reviewed Publications
Listed in Each Section by Year Published
1 SurePath® Liquid-Based Pap Test
1.1 SurePath® Performance in Special Patient Populations (Peer
Reviewed)
Sweeney BJ, Haq Z, Happel JF, Weinstein B, Schneider D. Comparison of the effectiveness of two liquidbased Papanicolauo systems in the handling of adverse limiting factors, such as excessive blood. Cancer
Cytopathol. 2006;108(1):27-31.
Swierczynski AL, Lewis-Chambers S, Anderson JR, Keller JM, Hinkle DA, Ali AZ. Impact of liquid-based
gynecologic cytology on an HIV-positive population. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(2):165-172.
Ludicke F, Stalberg A, Vassilakos P, Major AL, Campana A. High- and intermediate risk human
papillomavirus infection in sexually active adolescent females. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2001;14(4):171174.
1.2 Adjunctive Testing for STIs with SurePath® (Peer Reviewed)
Ko V, Tambouret RH, Kuebler DL, Black-Schaffer WS, Wilbur DC. Human papillomavirus testing using
hybrid capture II with SurePath collection: Initial evaluation and longitudinal data provide clinical validation
for this method. Cancer Cytopathol. 2006;108(6):468-474.
Verguts J, Bronselaer B, Donders G, et al. Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high-grade cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing and age at conisation. BJOG.
2006;113:1303-1307.
Depuydt CE, Benoy IH, Bailleul EJ, Vandepitte J, Vereecken AJ, Bogers JJ. Improved endocervical
sampling and HPV viral load detection by Cervex-Brush Combi. Cytopathology. 2006;17(6):374-381.
Powell N, Smith K, Fiander A. Recovery of human papillomavirus nucleic acids from liquid-based cytology
media. J Virol Methods. 2006;137(1):58-62.
Brink AA, Meijer CJ, Wiegerinck MA, et al. High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus
in cervicovaginal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a
conventional endocervical brush. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44(7):2518-2523.
Davis-Devine S, Day SJ, Freund GG. Test performance comparison of inform HPV and hybrid capture 2
high-risk HPV DNA tests using the SurePath liquid-based Pap test as the collection method. Am J Clin
Pathol. 2005;124(1):24-30.
Aslan DL, Gulbahce E, Stelow EB, et al. The diagnosis of Trichomonas vaginalis in liquid-based Pap tests:
correlation with PCR. Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;32(6):341-344.
Qureshi MN, Bolick D, Ringer PJ, Spangler FL, Zimmerman G. HPV testing in liquid cytology specimens.
Comparison of analytic sensitivity and specificity for in situ hybridization and chemiluminescent nucleic acid
testing. Acta Cytol. 2005;49(2):120-126.
Bewtra C, Xie Q, Soundararajan S, Gatalica Z, Hatcher L. Genital human papillomavirus testing by in situ
hybridization in liquid atypical cytologic materials and follow-up biopsies. Acta Cytol. 2005;49(2):127-131.
Petignat P, Faltin D, Goffin F, et al. Age-related performance of human papillomavirus testing used as an
adjunct to cytology for cervical carcinoma screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical
carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol. 2005;105(3):126-132.
Guo M, Hu L, Baliga M, He Z, Hughson MD. The predictive value of p16 and hybrid capture 2 human
papillomavirus testing for high grade CIN. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(6):894-901.
Sekhon HS, Press RD, Schmidt WA, Hawley M, Rader A. Identification of cytomegalovirus in a liquid-based
gynecologic sample using morphology, immunochemistry, and DNA real-time PCR detection. Diagn
Cytopathol. 2004;30(6):411-417.
Depuydt CE, Vereecken AJ, Salembier GM, et al. Thin-layer liquid-based cervical cytology and PCR for
detecting and typing human papillomavirus DNA in Flemish women. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(4):560-566.
Levi AW, Kelly DP, Rosenthal DL, Ronnett BM. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in
liquid-based cytologic specimens: results of reflex human papillomavirus testing and histologic follow-up in
routine practice with comparison of interpretive and probabilistic reporting methods. Cancer Cytopathol.
2003;99(4):191-197.
Anguenot JL, deMarval F, Vassilakos P, Auckenthaler R, Ibecheole V, Campana A. Combined screening for
Chlamydia trachomatis and squamous intra-epithelial lesions using a single liquid-based cervical sample.
Hum Reprod. 2001;16(10):2206-2210.
1.3 SurePath® Sample Collection & Specimen Adequacy (Peer
Reviewed)
Rinas AC, Mittman BW, Lv L, Hartmann K, Cayless J, Singh HK. Split-sample analysis of discarded cells
from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices. Acta Cytol. 2006;50(1):55-62.
Day SJ, O'Shaughnessy DL, O'Connor JC, Freund GG. Additional collection devices used in conjunction
with the SurePath liquid-based Pap test broom device do not enhance diagnostic utility. BMC Womens
Health. 2004;4(1):6.
Bigras G, Malgorzata AR, Lambercy JM, et al. Keeping collecting device in liquid medium is mandatory to
ensure optimized liquid-based cervical cytologic sampling. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2003;7(3):168-174.
Tibbs RF, Wong JY, Logrono R. Enhancing recovery of endocervical component on gynecologic cytology
specimens processed by thin-layer technology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(2):172-176.
Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep
endocervical adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118(1):41-46.
1.4 Direct to Vial Studies SurePath® (Peer Reviewed)
Nance, K. Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital – a ten year experience. Diagn Cytopathol.
2007;35(3):148-153.
Fremont-Smith M, Marino JF, Griffin B, Spencer L, Bolick D. Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based
Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer
Cytopathol. 2004;102(5):269-279.
Sass MA. Use of a liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital: impact on cytology
performance and productivity. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(1):17-22.
Colgan TJ, McLachlin CM, Cotterchio M, Howlett R, Seidenfeld AM, Mai VM. Results of the implementation
of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the Ontario screening program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2004;102(6):362367.
Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte® PREP in a small New England
regional cytology practice. J Reprod Med. 2001;46:353-358.
Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte® PREP: direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med.
2000;45(11):912-916.
Vassilakos P, Schwartz D, de Marval F, et al. Biopsy-based comparison of liquid-based, thin-layer
preparations to conventional Pap smears. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(1):11-16.
Vassilakos P, Saurel J, Rondez R. Direct to vial use of the AutoCyte® PREP liquid-based preparation for
cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(3):65-68.
1.5 Squamous, Glandular & General Cytology SurePath® (Peer
Reviewed)
Chivukula M, Shidham VB. ASC-H in Pap test—definitive categorization of cytomorphological spectrum.
CytoJournal. 2006;3:14.
Takei H, Ruiz B, Hicks J. Cervicovaginal flora. Comparison of conventional Pap smears and a liquid-based
thinlayer preparation. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125(6):855-859.
Saad RS, Takei H, Silverman JE, Lipscomb JT, Ruiz B. Clinical significance of a cytologic diagnosis of
atypical glandular cells, favor endometrial origin, in Pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2006;50(1):48-54.
Simsir A, Ioffe O, Sun P, Elgert P, Cangiarella J, Hummel Levine P. Effect of Bethesda 2001 on reporting of
atypical squamous cells (ASC) with special emphasis on atypical squamous cells-cannot rule out high grade
(ASC-H). Diagn Cytopathol. 2005;34(1):62-66.
Alves VA, Bibbo M, Schmitt FC, Milanezi F, Longatto Filho A. Comparison of manual and automated
methods of liquid-based cytology: a morphologic study. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(2):187-193.
Ng WK, Cheung LK, Li AS, Tse SK, Pang SW, Chow JC. Thin-layer cytology findings of small cell
carcinoma of the lower female genital tract. Review of three cases with molecular analysis. Acta Cytol.
2003;47(1):56-64.
Ng WK. Thin-layer (liquid-based) cytologic findings of papillary squamotransitional cell carcinoma of the
cervix. Review of cases over a 4-year period with emphasis on potential diagnostic pitfalls. Acta Cytol.
2003;47(2):141-148.
Ng WK, Cheung LK, Li AS. Warty (condylomatous) carcinoma of the cervix. A review of 3 cases with
emphasis on thin-layer cytology and molecular analysis for HPV. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(2):159-166.
1.6 SurePath® Miscellaneous (Peer Reviewed)
Sahebali S, Depuydt CE, Boulet GA, et al. Immunocytochemistry in liquid-based cervical cytology: analysis
of clinical use following a cross-sectional study. Int J Cancer. 2006;118(5):1254-1260.
Kirschner B, Simonsen K, Junge J. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smear and SurePath liquidbased cytology in the Copenhagen population screening programme for cervical cancer. Cytopathology.
2006;17(4):187-194.
Longatto-Filho A, Maeda MY, Erzen M, et al. Conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology as
screening tools in low-resource settings in Latin America: experience of the Latin American screening study.
Acta Cytol. 2005;49(5):500-506.
Syrjanen K, Naud P, Derchain S, et al. Comparing PAP smear cytology, aided visual inspection, screening
colposcopy, cervicography and HPV testing as optimal screening tools in Latin America. Study design and
baseline data of the LAMS study. Anticancer Res. 2005;25(5):3469-3480.
Saqi A, Pasha TL, McGrath CM, Yu GH, Shang P, Gupta P. Overexpression of p16INK4A in liquid-based
specimens (SurePath) as marker of cervical dysplasia and neoplasia. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;27(6)365370.
Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewicz J, Sauvegeot J, Henry MR. Effect of cellularity on the sensitivity of
detecting squamous lesions in liquid-based cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(4):605-610.
Shirata NK, Longatto Filho A, Roteli-Martins C, Espoladore LM, Pittoli JE, Syrjanen K. Applicability of liquidbased cytology to the assessment of DNA content in cervical lesions using static cytometry. Anal Quant
Cytol Histol. 2003;25(4):210-214.
Bishop JW. Cellularity of liquid-based, thin-layer cervical cytology slides. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(4):633-636.
Rowe LR, Marshall J, Bentz JS. The PrepMate automated accessory: a comparison of automated and
manual methods of liquid-based gynecologic sample preparation. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;27(5):312-315.
Gupta PK, Baloch ZW, Cobbs C, Bibbo M. Processing liquid-based gynecologic specimens: comparison of
the available techniques. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(6);995-998.
Bergeron C, Bishop J, Lemarie A, et al. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone
biopsy. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(4):519-524.
Maksem JA, Finnemore M, Belsheim BL, et al. Manual method for liquid-based cytology: a demonstration
using 1,000 gynecological cytologies collected directly to vial and prepared by a smear-slide technique.
Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25(5):334-338.
1.7 SurePath®Split-Sample Publication (Peer Reviewed)
Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer B, Callicott J, Husain M, Taylor D. Effectiveness of thin-layer preparations vs
conventional Pap smears in a blinded, split-sample study. Extended cytologic evaluation. J Reprod Med.
2001;46(10):880-886.
Minge L, Fleming M, VanGreen T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte® PREP system vs. conventional cervical cytology:
comparison based on 2,156 cases. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(3):179-184.
1.8 SurePath® Publications Prior to Year 2000 (Peer Reviewed)
Saurel J, Rabreau M, Landi M, et al. Cytological screening of uterine cervical cancer by samples in liquid
medium (CytoRich). Preliminary study of a series of 111,292 patients [in French]. Contracept Fertil Sex.
1999;27(12):853-857.
Vassilakos P, da Marval F, Munoz M, Broquet G, Campana A. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA assay as
an adjunct to liquid-based Pap test in the diagnostic triage of women with an abnormal Pap smear. Int J
Gynecol Obstet. 1998;81:45-50.
Vassilakos P, Griffin S, Megevand E, Campana A. CytoRich® liquid based cervical cytology test: screening
results in a routine cytopathology service. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:198-202.
Takahashi M, Kimura M, Akagi A, Naitoh M. AutoCyte SCREEN interactive automated primary cytology
screening system. A preliminary evaluation. Acta Cytol. 1998;42(1):185-188.
Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic
cytology preparations: a review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol.1998;42(1):178-184.
Bishop J, Bigner S, Colgan T, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte® PREP thin layers with
matched conventional smears: including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:180-197.
Howell LP, Davis RL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The AutoCyte® preparation system for gynecologic
cytology. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:171-177.
Stevens M, Nespolon W, Milne A, Rowland R. Evaluation of the CytoRich® Technique for Cervical Smears.
Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:238-242.
Bishop J. Comparison of the CytoRich® system with conventional cervical cytology: preliminary data on
2,032 cases from a clinical trial site. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:15-23.
Laverty C, Farnsworth A, Thurloe J, Grieves A, Bowditch R. Evaluation of the CytoRich® slide preparation
process. Anal Quant Cytol Histol.1997;19:239-245.
Takahashi M, Naito M. Application of the CytoRich® monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology: a
prelude to automated primary screening. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:1785-1789.
Wilbur D, Facik M, Rutkowski M, Mulford D, Atkison K. Clinical trials of the CytoRich® specimen preparation
device for cervical cytology: preliminary results. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:24-29.
McGoogan E, Reith A. Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations
for cervical screening? Overview and evaluation of systems available. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:107-119.
Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, et al. The false-negative rate in cervical cytology: comparison
of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:81-89.
Vassilakos P, Cossali D, Albe X, et al. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: emphasis on
suboptimal specimens. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:496-500.
Learmonth G, Monson G, Ruotolo N, Geyer J. The efficiency of CytoRich® for the preparation of cervical
monolayers. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:322.
Scherr G, Felix J. Comparison of CytoRich® monolayer smears to conventional prepared smears in the
detection of cervical dysplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;102:530.
Geyer J, Hancock F, Carrico C, Kirkpatrick M. Preliminary evaluation of CytoRich®: an improved automated
cytology preparation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;9:412-422.
1.9 Non–Peer Reviewed SurePath® Publications
College of American Pathologists, Young NA, Moriarty AT, Walsh MK, Wang E, Wilbur DC. The potential for
failure in gynecologic regulatory proficiency testing with current slide validation criteria: results from the
College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison in Gynecologic Cytology Program. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(8):1114-1118.
Bentz JS. Liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2005;5(6):857-871.
Prey M, Moriarty A. Using liquid-based cervical cytology specimens to test for Chlamydia. CAP Today.
2005; June (PAP/NGC Programs Review).
Nance KV. Vaginal lubricants do not affect the quality of SurePath Pap specimens. ASCT Voice.
2005;1(4):6.
Prey MU, Abdul-Karim F. Gynecologic cytopathology. In: Atkinson BF. Atlas of Diagnostic Cytopathology.
W.B. Saunders Company; 2004.
Colgan TJ. Programmatic assessments of the clinical effectiveness of gynecologic liquid-based cytology: the
ayes have it. Cancer Cytopathol. 2003;99(5):263-271.
Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier Peter F, Hanselaar AG. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer.
2003;99(5):263-271.
Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Hart AR, Kiely S, Anderew-JaJa C, Scioscia E. Willingness to pay for new
Papanicolaou test technologies. Anat Pathol. 2002;117:524-533.
Felix J. Liquid-based, thin-layer cytology. In: Apgar BS, Brontzman GL, Spitzer M. Colposcopy: Principles
and Practice. W.B. Saunders Company; 2002.
Black-Schaffer WS. Choosing between competing technologies in the cytology laboratory. Clin Lab Med.
2003;23:681-694.
Bishop JW, Marshall CJ, Bentz JS. New technologies in gynecologic cytology. J Reprod Med.
2000;45(9):701-719.
Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing.
JAMA. 1999;27(4):347-353.
®
2 FocalPoint slide profiler
2.1 FocalPoint® & SurePath® (Peer Reviewed)
Vassilakos P, Petignat P, Boulvain M, Campana A. Primary screening for cervical cancer precursors by the
combined use of liquid-based cytology, computer-assisted cytology and HPV DNA testing. Br J Cancer.
2002;86(3):382-388.
Vassilakos P, Carrel S, Petignat P, Boulvain M, Campana A. Use of automated primary screening on liquidbased, thin-layer preparations. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(2):291-295.
2.2 FocalPoint® & Conventional Pap Smear (Peer Reviewed)
Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Troni GM, Ciatto S. Quality control of the AutoPap screening system employed as
a primary screening device: rapid review of smears coded as no further review. Tumori. 2006;92(4):276278.
Rowe LR, Marshall CJ, Berry M, Larson MA, Bentz JS. Accuracy of a slide profiler for endocervical cell
detection in no-further-review conventional pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(4):602-604.
Walts AE, Thomas P. Endometrial cells and the AutoPap system for primary screening of cervicovaginal
Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;27(4):232-237.
Wilbur DC, Norton M. The primary screening clinical trials of the TriPath AutoPap system. Epidemiology.
2002;13(3)(suppl):S30-S33.
Tench W. Validation of AutoPap primary screening system sensitivity and high-risk performance. Acta Cytol.
2002;46(2):296-302.
Alasio LM, Alphandery C, Grassi P, Ruggeri M, De Palo G, Pilotti S. Performance of the AutoPap primary
screening system in the detection of high-risk cases in cervico-vaginal smears. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):704708.
Renshaw AA. Estimating the percentage of Papanicolaou smears that can be reproducibly identified:
modeling Papanicolaou smear interpretation based on multiple blinded rescreenings. Cancer.
2001;93(4):241-245.
Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false-negative rate of rescreening pap tests. Measured in
a two-armed prospective clinical trial. Cancer. 2001;93(2):106-110.
Wiley BB, Matz LR. Use of the AutoPap as a primary automated cervical cancer screening system. Med J
Aust. 2001;174(3):151-152.
McQuarrie H, Ogden J, Costa M. Understanding the financial impact of covering new screening
technologies: the case of automated pap smears. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(11):898-906.
2.3 FocalPoint® GS Imaging System (Peer Reviewed)
(This section contains articles whose information has not been approved or cleared by the Food and Drug
Administration in the United States)
Eichhorn JH, Brauns TA, Gelfand JA, Crothers BA, Wilbur DC. A novel automated screening and
interpretation process for cervical cytology using the Internet transmission of low-resolution images: a
feasibility study. Cancer. 2005;105(4):199-206.
Parker EM, Foti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in
classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Diagn Cytopathol.
2004;30(2):107-110.
Stevens MW, Milne AJ, Parkinson IH, et al. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in
the evaluation of cervical cytology smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;31(2):94-99.
Ronco G, Vineis C, Montanari G, et al. Impact of the Autopap (currently FocalPoint) primary screening
system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis. Cancer Cytopathol. 2003;99(2):83-88.
Confortini M, Bonardi L, Bulgaresi P, et al. A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap screening system as
a primary screening and location-guided re-screening device. Cancer Cytopathol. 2003;99(3):129-134.
Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens. A
potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Am J Clin
Pathol. 2002;118:399-407.
Chang AR, Lin WF, Chang A, Chong KS. Can technology expedite the cervical cancer screening process?
A Hong Kong experience using the AutoPap primary screening system with location guided screening
capability. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;117(3)437-443.
2.4 AutoPap®300 QC System Studies (Peer Reviewed)
(The AutoPap 300 QC System was approved for use in the US as a quality control device in 1996. Effective
January 1, 2000. the AutoPap 300 QC device was no longer commercially available. It has been replaced with
the FocalPoint™ slide profiler for primary screening for both the SurePath™ liquid-based Pap test and the
conventional Pap smear)
Abulafia O, Sherer DM. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the AutoPap®
300 QC system. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1999;54(7):469-476.
Fetterman B, Pawlick G, Koo H, Hartinger J, Gilber C, Connell S. Determining the utility and effectiveness of
the NeoPath AutoPap® 300 QC system used routinely. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(3):13-22.
Marshall CJ, Rowe L, Bentz JS. Improved quality-control detection of false-negative Pap smears using the
AutoPap® 300QC system. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20(3):170-174.
Berry MC, Bentz J, Farnsworth R, Marshall CJ. Evaluation of the AutoPap® 300 QC system for improving
detection of endometrial disease. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:1252.
Colgan T, Bon N, Lee J, Patten S. AutoPap® 300 QC system scoring of cervical smears without “epithelial
cell abnormalities.” Acta Cytol. 1997;41:45-49.
Colgan T, Smith J, Patten S, Lee J. Enhancing the performance of the AutoPap® 300 QC system with
optimal staining and presentation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1997:41:50-55.
Kaminsky F, Benneyan J, Mullins D. Automated rescreening in cervical cytology: mathematical models for
evaluating overall process sensitivity, specificity and cost. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:209-223.
Patten SF, Lee JS, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap® 300 QC system multicenter clinical trials for use in
quality control rescreening of cervical smears: I. A prospective intended use study. Cancer. 1997;81(6):337342.
Patten SF, Lee JS, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap® 300 QC system multicenter clinical trials for use in
quality control rescreening of cervical smears: II. Prospective and archival sensitivity studies. Cancer.
1997;81(6):343-347.
Stevens M, Milne A, James KA, Brancheau D, et al. Effectiveness of automated cervical cytology
rescreening using the AutoPap® 300 QC system. Focus on Technology. 1997;16:505-512.
Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA, et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap® 300 QC system to cervical
cytologic abnormalities. Biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol. 1996;40(1):127-132.
Colgan T, Patten S, Lee J. A clinical trial of the AutoPap® 300 QC system for quality control of
cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:1191-1198.
Anderson TL. Automatic screening of conventional cytologic smears: the AutoPap® 300 and AutoPap® 300
QC systems. Tutorial of Cytology. 1994;306-311.
2.5 FocalPoint® & FocalPoint™ GS: Pre–Year 2000 (Peer
Reviewed)
Bibbo M, Hawthorne C, Zimmerman B. Does use of the AutoPap® assisted primary screener improve
cytologic diagnosis? Acta Cytol. 1999;43(1):23-26.
Bibbo M, Hawthorne C. Performance of the AutoPap® primary screening system at Jefferson University
Hospital. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(1):27-29.
Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing.
JAMA. 1999 27(4):347-353.
Smith B, Lee M, Leader S, Wertlake P. Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical
cancer. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:6.
Wertlake P. Results of AutoPap® system-assisted and manual cytology screening. A comparison. J Reprod
Med. 1999;44(1):11-17.
Wilbur D, Prey M, Miller W, Pawlick G, Colgan T, Taylor D. Detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial
lesions and tumors using the AutoPap® system: results of a primary screening clinical trial. Cancer
Cytopathol. 1999;87(6):354-358.
Wilbur D, Prey M, Miller W, Pawlick G, Colgan T. AutoPap® system detection of infections and benign
cellular changes: results from the primary screener clinical trials. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;21:355-358.
Lee J, Nelson A, Wilbur DC, Patten SF. The development of an automated Papanicolau smear screening
system. Cancer. 1998;81:332-336.
Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ: The AutoPap® system for primary screening in
cervical cytology: comparing the results of a prospective intended-use study with routine manual practice.
Acta Cytol. 1998;42:214-220.
Wilhelm P, Kuan L, Lee J, et al. AutoPap® system performance in screening for low prevalence and small
cell abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 1997;41(1):56-64.
Huang TW, Lin TSM, Shih-Jong Lee J: Sensitivity studies of AutoPap® system location-guided screening of
cervical-vaginal cytologic smears. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(3):363-368.
Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap® system location guided
screening. Acta Cytol. 1998;42(1):221-226.
2.6 Non–Peer Reviewed FocalPoint®Slide Profiler Publications
Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help?
Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modeling exercise applied to the
UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(13):1-207.
Kardos TF. The FocalPoint system: FocalPoint slide profiler and FocalPoint GS. Cancer. 2004;102(6):334339.
Wilbur D. Cervical cytology automation: an update for 2003. The end of the quest nears? Clin Lab Med.
2003;23:755-774.
Bishop JW, Marshall CJ, Bentz JS. New technologies in gynecologic cytology. J Reprod Med.
2000;45:9:701-719.
Frable WJ. A tribute to Stanley F. Patten, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. Cancer Cytopathol. 1997;81(6):315-336.
Patten SF, Lee J, Nelson A. NeoPath® AutoPap® 300 automatic Pap screener system. Acta Cytol.
1996;40(1):45-52.
Lee J, Nelson A, Patten SF. The AutoPap® 300 automatic Pap screener system. ASCT News. 1995;16:5758.
3 Cell Cycle Alterations & Aberrant S-phase
Induction in Cancer Development
3.1 Aberrant S-phase Induction in Cervical Cytology (Peer
Reviewed)
Shroyer KR, Homer P, Heinz D, Singh M. Validation of a novel immunocytochemical assay for
Topoisomerase II and minichromosome maintenance protein 2 expression in cervical cytology. Cancer
Cytopathol. 2006;108(5):324-330.
Kelly D, Kincaid E, Fansler Z, Rosenthal DL, Clark DP. Detection of cervical high-grade squamous
intraepithelial lesions from cytologic samples using a novel immunocytochemical assay (ProEx C). Cancer
Cytopathol. 2006;108(6):494-500.
3.2 Aberrant S-phase Induction: Cancer Development (Peer
Reviewed)
Kim JH, Tuziak T, Hu L, Want Z, et al. Alterations in transcription clusters underlie development of bladder
cancer along papillary and nonpapillary pathways. Lab Invest. 2005;85:532-549.
Ha SA, Shin SM, Namkoong H, et al. Cancer-associated expression of minichromosome maintenance 3
gene in several human cancers and its involvement in tumorigenesis. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:8386-8395.
Sirieix PS, O’Donovan M, Brown J, Save V, Coleman N, Fitzgerald RC. Surface expression of
minichromosome maintenance proteins provides a novel method for detecting patients at risk for developing
adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:2560-2566.
Brake T, Connor JP, Petereit DG, Lambert PF. Comparative analysis of cervical cancer in women and in a
human papillomavirus-transgenic mouse model: identification of minichromosome maintenance protein 7 as
an informative biomarker for human cervical cancer. Cancer Res. 2003;63:8173-8180.
Ishimi Y, Okayasu I, Kato C, et al. Enhanced expression of MCM proteins in cancer cells derived from
uterine cervix. Eur J Biochem. 2003;270:1089-1101.
Going JJ, Keithe WN, Stoeber K, Neilson L, Stuart RC, Williams GH. Aberrant expression of
minichromosome maintenance proteins 2 and 5, and Ki-67 in dysplastic squamous oesophageal epithelium
and Barrett’s mucosa. Gut. 2002;50:373-377.
Stoeber K, Swinn R, Prevost T, de Clive-Lowe P, et al. Diagnosis of genito-urinary tract cancer by detection
of minichromosome maintenance 5 protein in urine sediments. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(14):1071-1079.
Clarke B, Chetty R. Cell cycle aberrations in the pathogenesis of squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine
cervix. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:238-246.
Nakopoulou L, Zervas A, Lazaris AC, et al. Predictive value of topoisomerase IIa immunostaining in
urothelial bladder carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:309-313.
Williams GH, Romanowski P, Morris L, et al. Improved cervical smear assessment using antibodies against
proteins that regulate DNA replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:14932-14937.
3.3 Aberrant S-phase Induction: Basic Science (Peer Reviewed)
van der Meijden CM, Lapointe DS, Luong MX, et al. Gene profiling of cell cycle progression through Sphase reveals sequential expression of genes required for DNA replication and nucleosome assembly.
Cancer Res. 2002;62:3233-3243.
Ishida S, Huang E, Zuzan H, et al. Role for E2F in control of both DNA replication and mitotic functions as
revealed from DNA microarray analysis. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21:4684-4699.
Whitfield ML, Sherlock G, Saldanha AJ, et al. Identification of genes periodically expressed in the human
cell cycle and their expression in tumors. Mol Biol Cell. 2002;13:1977-2000.
Arata Y, Fujita M, Ohtani K, Kijima S, Kato JY. Cdk2-dependent and -independent pathways in E2Fmediated S phase induction. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:6337-6345.
Freeman A, Morris LS, Mills AD, et al. Minichromosome maintenance proteins as biological markers of
dysplasia and malignancy. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5:2121-2132.
3.4 Non–Peer Reviewed Publications: Aberrant S-phase Induction
Malinowski DP. Molecular diagnostic assays for cervical neoplasia emerging markers for the detection of
high-grade cervical disease. BioTechniques. 2005;38(suppl):517-523.
Massague J. GI cell-cycle control and cancer. Nature. 2004;432:298-306.
Kastan MB, Bartek J. Cell-cycle checkpoints and cancer. Nature. 2004;432:316-323.
Sears RC, Nevins JR. Signaling networks that link cell proliferation and cell fate. J Biol Chem.
2002;277:11617-11620.
Alison MR, Hunt T, Forbes SJ. Minichromosome maintenance (MCM) proteins may be pre-cancer markers.
Gut. 2002;50:290-291.
Lei M, Tye BK. Initiating DNA synthesis: from recruiting to activating the MCM complex. J Cell Sci.
2001;114:1447-1454.
Gonzalez MA, Tachibana KE, Laskey RA, Coleman N. Innovation: control of DNA replication and its
potential clinical exploitation. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(2):135-141.
Tachibana KE, Gonzalez MA, Coleman N. Cell-cycle-dependent regulation of DNA replication and its
relevance to cancer pathology. J Pathol. 2005;205:123-129.
4 Cervical Cancer Screening Related
Publications
4.1 Peer Reviewed Publications
Wright TC, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Cox JT, et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus
DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(2):304-309.
Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Carlson J, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the
management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):295-304.
Davey DD, Austin RM, Birdsong G, et al. for the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology.
ASCCP patient management guidelines: Pap test specimen adequacy and quality indicators. Am J Clin
Pathol. 2002;118(5):714-718.
Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda system, terminology for reporting results of
cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114-2119.
Stoler M. New Bethesda terminology and evidence based management guidelines for cervical cytology
findings. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2140-2141.
Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of
cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(6):375-376.
Wright TC, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ, for the 2001 ASCCP-Sponsored Consensus
Conference. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological
abnormalities. JAMA. 2000;287(16):2120-2129.
4.2 Non–Peer Reviewed Publications
Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag; 2004.
Lazcano-Ponce E, Alonso P, Ruiz-Moreno JA, Hernandez-Avila M. Recommendations for cervical cancer
screening programs in developing countries. The need for equity and technological development. Salud
Publica de Mexico. 2003;45(3):449-462.
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Recommendations and Rationale, Screening for Cervical Cancer. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 3rd
Ed. 2002–2003. http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov, National Guideline Clearinghouse
www.guideline.gov, AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse 1.800.358.9295 or ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov.
Frable WJ. A tribute to Stanley F. Patten, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. Cancer Cytopathol. 1997;81(6):315-336.
5 Cervical Sampling Related Articles
5.1 Peer Reviewed Cervical Sampling Publications
Day SJ, O'Shaughnessy DL, O'Connor JC, Freund GG. Additional collection devices used in conjunction
with the SurePath liquid-based Pap test broom device do not enhance diagnostic utility. BMC Women’s
Health. 2004;4(1):6.
Tibbs RF, Wong JY, Logrono R. Enhancing recovery of endocervical component on gynecologic cytology
specimens processed by thin-layer technology. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(2):172-176.
Roberson J, Connolly K, St John K, Eltoum I, Chhieng DC. Accuracy of reporting endocervical component
adequacy—a continuous quality improvement project. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;27(3):181-184.
Jarvi K. Cervex-Brush versus vaginal-cervical-endocervical (VCE) triple smear techniques in cervical
sampling. Cytopathol. 1997;8(4):282-288.
Risberg B, Andersson A, Zetterberg C, Nordin B. Cervex-Brush vs. spatula and Cytobrush. A cytohistologic
evaluation. J Reprod Med. 1997;42(7):405-408.
Sparrow MJ, Fauck R, Gupta RK. A trial of two methods of taking cervical smears: the Aylesbury spatula
plus cytology brush compared to the Cervex broom. N Z Med J. 1997;110(1052):356-358.
Buntinx F, Brouwers M. Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears:
a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized studies. BMJ. 1996;313(7068):1285-1290.
Kavak ZN, Eren F, Pekin S, Kullu S. A randomized comparison of the 3 Papanicolaou smear collection
methods. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;35(4):446-449.
Paraiso MF, Brady K, Helmchen R, Roat TW. Evaluation of the endocervical Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush
in pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(4):539-543.
Cannon JM, Blythe JG. Comparison of the Cytobrush plus plastic spatula with the Cervex Brush for
obtaining endocervical cells. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(4 pt 1):569-572.
McCord ML, Stovall TG, Summitt RL, Coleman SA. Cervical cytology:a randomized comparison of four
sampling methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 pt 1):1772-1777.
Ferris DG, Berrey MM, Ellis KE, Petry LJ, Boxnaes J, Beatie RT. The optimal technique for obtaining a
Papanicolaou smear with the Cervex-Brush. J Fam Pract. 1992;34(3):276-280.
Hutchinson M, Fertitta L, Goldbaum B, Hamza M, Vanerian S. Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush. Comparison of
their ability to sample abnormal cells for cervical smears. J Reprod Med. 1991;36(8):581-586.
Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of
cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1989;33(6):843-848.
5.2 Non–Peer Reviewed Publication(s)
Bonfiglio TA, Erozan YS. Gynecologic cytopathology. In: Atkison KM. Specimen Collection and
Determinants of Adequacy. Lippencott-Raven; 1997.
6 CytoRich® Nongynecologic Cytology
6.1 CytoRich® Nongynecologic Publications (Peer Reviewed)
Kujan O, Desai M, Sargent A, Bailey A, Turner A, Sloan P. Potential applications of oral brush cytology with
liquid-based technology: results from a cohort of normal oral mucosa. Oral Oncol. 2006;42:810-818.
Hayama FH, Motta AC, Silva AP, Migliari DA. Liquid-based preparations versus conventional cytology:
specimen adequacy and diagnostic agreement in oral lesions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal.
2005;10(2):115-122.
Yang GC, Wan LS, Papella J, Waisman J. Compact cell blocks. Use for body fluids, fine needle aspirations
and endometrial brush biopsies. Acta Cytol. 1998;42(3):703-706.
Arain S, Walts AE, Thomas P, Bose S. The anal Pap smear: cytomorphology of squamous intraepithelial
lesions. CytoJournal. 2005;2:4.
Walts AE, Thomas P, Bose S. Anal cytology: is there a role for reflex HPV DNA testing? Diagn Cytopathol.
2005;33(3):152-156.
Davis-Devine S, Day SJ, Freund GG. New red blood cell lysing fixative for use in fine needle aspiration and
fluid cytology. Acta Cytol.. 2003;47(4);630-636.
Veneti S, Daskalopoulou D, Servoudis S, Papasotiriou E, Ioannidou-Mouuzaka L. Liquid-based cytology in
breast fine needle aspiration. Comparison with the conventional smear. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(2):188-192.
Zardawi IM, Duncan J. Evaluation of a centrifuge method and thin-layer preparation in urine cytology. Acta
Cytol. 2003;47(6):1038-1042.
Gabriel C, Achten R, Drijkoningen M. Use of liquid-based cytology in serous fluids: a comparison with
conventional cytopreparatory techniques. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(6):825-835.
Michael CW, McConnel J, Pecott J, et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and TriPath PREP liquid-based
preparations in nongynecologic specimens: a pilot study. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002;25(3):177-184.
Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology. 2001;12(5) 306313.
Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds DI. Comparison of TriPath® thin-layer technology with conventional methods on
nongynecologic specimens. Acta Cytol. 2000;44(4):567-575.
Motherby H, Nicklaus S, Berg A, et al. Semiautomated monolayer preparation of bronchial secretions using
AutoCyte® PREP. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(1):47-57.
Weidmann J, King L, Bibbo M. Modification of CytoRich red fixative system for use on bloody Pap and fineneedle aspiration smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1999;20(2):95-98.
Bishop J, Sims K. Cellular morphometry in nongynecologic thin-layer and filter cytologic specimens.
Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology. 1998;20(4):257-267.
Bishop J, MacFarlane K, Cheuvront D, et al. Cell recovery and appearance in thin-layer preparations in nongynecologic cytology. Analyt Quant Cytol Histol. 1998;20:229-237.
Weidmann J, Chaubal A, Bibbo M. Cellular fixation: a study of CytoRich® red and CytoSpin collection fluid.
Acta Cytol. 1997;41(1):182-187.
Maksem J, Sager F, Bender R. Endometrial collection and interpretation using the TaoBrush and the
CytoRich® fixative system: a feasibility study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;17:339-346.
Maksem J, Knesel E. Liquid fixation of endometrial brush cytology ensures a well preserved, representative
cell sample with frequent tissue correlation. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:367-373.
Johnson T, Maksem JA, Beisheim BI, Roose EB, Klock LA, Eatwell I. Liquid-based cervical-cell collection
with brushes and wooden spatulas, demonstrating a cost-effective, alternative monolayer slide preparation
method. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000;22(2):86-91.
6.2 Non–Peer Reviewed CytoRich ® Nongynecologic Publications
Darragh TM. Anal cytology for anal cancer screening: is it time yet? Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;30(6);371-374.
Scheck A. IVD Technology News: Automated Pap systems experimentally check sputum. IVD Technol.
1997; March: 10-13.
7 Abstracts (Non–Peer Reviewed) 2000–2005
7.1 SurePath® Liquid-Based Pap Test
Aslan DL, Setty S, et al. Are infections other than HPV responsible for ASC-US? [abstract] Mod Pathol.
2005;18(suppl 1):60A.
Aslan DL, McKeon DM, et al. Are “inflammatory” Pap tests caused by infections? [abstract] Mod Pathol.
2005;18(suppl 1):60A.
Guo M, Zhou J, He Z, et al. Predictive value of p16INK4a in detection of CIN2/3 from women with LSIL Pap
results, a biopsy comparison study [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):66A.
Kotov P, Parameswaran L, et al. p16 immunostaining of liquid based cervical cytology smears with
SurePath — comparison of two antibodies [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):69A.
Kotov P, Parameswaran L, et al. Application of p16INK4A immunostaining for definitive interpretation of
ASC=H in liquid based cervical cytology smears with SurePath [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl
1):69A.
Shen S, Bonadio J, de la Maza I, et al. Significance of positive high-risk HPV DNA tests in patients with
cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) [abstract]. Mod
Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):77A.
Thrall M, Savik K, Kjeldahl K, et al. Benign endometrial cells in Papanicolau tests of women over 40 have a
low predictive value for endometrial malignancy [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):79A.
Yang GCH, Wan LS, Mierlar J, et al. Endometrial brushing: an alternative method to assess endometrial
pathology. Data from 1394 cases with 7-year follow-up [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):81A.
Mehrotra S, Setty S, et al. p 16 and hTERT staining as a triage for ASCUS: can we forego molecular
testing? [abstract] Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):72A.
Qureshi MN, Bolick DR, et al. To triage or not? A multi-institutional study examining prevalence of HPV
high-risk types in LSIL cases [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):74A.
Rinas A, Mittman B, et al. Split sample analysis of throw away cells from ThinPrep Pap smear sampling
devices [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(suppl 1):75A.
Roychowdiury M, Setty S, et al. ASC-H. Should we reflex-test for HPV DNA too? [abstract] Mod Pathol.
2005;18(suppl 1):75A.
Davis-Devine S, Day SJ, et al. Test performance comparison of the Ventana (Inform® HPV) and Digene
(Hybrid Capture® 2 ) HPV DNA tests using the SurePath liquid-based Pap test as the collection
methodology [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):655.
Bose S, Evans H, et al. Is p16INK4A a biomarker for human papillomavirus (HPV) associated dysplasias of
the uterine cervix as determined on the Pap smear? [abstract] Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):657.
Geyer JW, Marino J. Evaluation of the Liqui-Prep cytology preparation [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):665.
Ji H, Geddes S, et al. Significance of atypical squamous cells (ASC) on liquid-based cervical cytology in
postmenopausal women [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):669.
Babb M, Womack C, Savoloja L. Comparison of SurePath ASC-US Pap tests with conventional ASCUS Pap
smears: follow-up correlation using HCII HPV testing and biopsy results [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):670.
Jacob B, Desai J, Gong Y. The significance of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance
(ASCUS) and atypical squamous cells-cannot exclude HSIL (ASC-H) in gynecologic specimens at a cancer
institution [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):671.
Neapolitano MJ, Viray AJ, Kapoor V, et al. Comparison of liquid based and conventional Pap smears for
detection of atypical glandular cells with follow-up data [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):673.
Farinola MA, Diaz-Montes T, et al. Clinical utility of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance
(AGUS) classification: cytohistologic correlation and relationship to HPV results [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):675.
Belsley N, Misdraji J, Tambouret R, et al. Cytologic features of endocervical glandular lesions: comparison
between conventional smears, ThinPrep and SurePath specimen preparations [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):675.
Nicol T, Geddes S, Ji H. Tolerance for the conventional cervical smear: has the percentage of cases “limited
by” various characteristics increased since the introduction of liquid based cervical cytology? [abstract] Acta
Cytol. 2004;48(5):679.
Baker JJ. A simple method to assess cellularity of liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology slides [abstract].
Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):680.
Ylagan L, Suarex AA, Sarkar R. Initial assessment of HPV positivity using the digene capture method
among cases regarded as ASCUS: the first year of experience [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):683.
Gulbahce HE, Savik KP, Setty SA, et al. Incidence and significance of dual HPV infections detected during
reflex HPV testing for ASC-US by a PCR-based method [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):684.
Zhang D, Gaudier F, David O, et al. Cytologic criteria predictive of high risk (HR) HPV genotype in ASCUS
liquid-based Pap tests [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):685.
Kenyon S, Sweeney BJ, Marchilli GE, et al. Comparison of SurePath and ThinPrep Pap systems in the
processing of mucus-rich specimens [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):697.
Dry J, Wald-Scott C, Friedberg MA, et al. Comparison of the new Synermed GluCyte liquid-based thin-layer
preparation with both Cytyc ThinPrep and TriPath SurePath preparations [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):697.
Nance KV, Shepard DS. Improved SurePath specimen processing time [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):698.
Avissar PL, Harrison MD, Li Hewei, Malinowski DP. Adequacy of SurePath cytology samples for DNA-based
applications: HPV detection, identification and quantitation [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):698.
Duch J, Cotter K, Beckman D. Follow-up correlation of abnormal SurePath Pap results [abstract]. Acta
Cytol. 2004;48(5):699.
Hitchcock TA, Boudreauz C, Carter JE, et al. SurePath supernatants vs. cell pellet: a comparative study
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):699.
Prpic DK, Hall L, Wingate SD, et al. Immunocytochemistry method for the detection of cervical markers from
SurePath specimens [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):700.
Rinas AC, Mittman BW, Singh H. Split sample analysis of throw away cells from ThinPrep Pap smear
sampling devices [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2004;48(5):705.
Aslan DL, Prekker FL, Schacker TW, et al. Accuracy of detection of herpes simplex virus (HSV) in liquidbased (SurePath) Pap tests: a comparison with real-time quantitative PCR [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2004;48(5):754.
Nassar A, Cohen C, Lewis MM. Utility of p16INK4A as an adjunctive test in liquid-based gynecologic
cytology SurePath preparations [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):836.
Guo M, Hu L, Baliga M, et al. A better predictive value of p16 than high-risk HPV testing for high grade
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):836.
Gulbahce HE, McKeon DM, Rohlader J, et al. PCR-based HPV testing supports the elimination of benign
cellular changes (BCC) as a diagnostic category in Bethesda 2001 [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):837.
Lisell CI, Setty S, Gulbahce HE, et al. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based reflex human papillomavirus
(HPV) testing is an effective ASCUS triage method in teenagers [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):837.
Bolick DR, Bolick RE, Staley BE, Lin KK. Digene hybrid capture 2 HPV signal strength as an indicator of
ASC yield [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):842.
Bolick DR, Bolick RE, Staley BE, Lin KK. Effects of Pap specimen cellularity in the detection rate of HPV
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):844.
Patel SJ, Chovanec M, Tarco E, et al. Comparison of INFORM HPV and hybrid capture II in detecting highrisk human papillomavirus [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):846.
Avissar PL, Li H, Malinowski DP. Genotyping analysis of human papillomavirus in cervical carcinoma in
Vietnamese women [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):849.
Staley BE, Spangler FI, Bolick DR, Lin KK. HPV genotyping from SurePath Pap specimens by DNA
sequencing [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):850.
Nassar A, Robinson LP. Histologic follow-up and HPV testing of ASCUS: one-year institutional experience
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):851.
Barcia S, Schofield K, Chacho M. Follow-up of high grade cytology results utilizing SurePath technology as
compared to ThinPrep [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):855.
Godwin PB, Nance KV. Broom versus brush/spatula collection devices for SurePath specimens: a validation
study [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):855.
Beckmann MJ, Featherstone MM, Shevlin DW. Direct-to-vial use of SurePath in a community hospital
setting [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):856.
Sneed RM, Lerud KS. Clinical evaluation of the SurePath method and clinical follow-up [abstract]. Acta
Cytol. 2003;47(5):856.
Day SJ, O’Shaughnessy DL, Freund GG. Additional collection devices used in conjunction with the
SurePath test pack broom device do not enhance SurePath liquid-based Pap test diagnostic utility
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):857.
Bolick DR, Ke Lin K. Effectively implementing the Bethesda system 2001 guidelines on specimen adequacy
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):929.
McGrath CM, Wright AI, Gupta PK. The learning curve of endocervical component evaluation following
implementation of liquid-based gynecologic cytopathology [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):941.
McGrath CM, Slott S, Gupta PK. Comparison of cytologic preparations for endocervical
component:conventional smear vs AutoCyte PREP [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):942.
Ali TZ, Mathew S, Henry MR, Zakowski MF, Rosenthal DL, Ali SZ. A morphologic analysis of malignant cells
in liquid-based (LB) gynecologic cytology [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):947.
Ali TZ, Mathew S, Henry MR, Zakowski MF, Rosenthal DL, Ali SZ. Tumor diathesis in liquid-based (LB)
gynecologic cytology: a morphologic analysis with emphasis on its diagnostic usefulness [abstract]. Acta
Cytol. 2002;46(5):947.
Davis-Devine S, Adams CL, Madison-Henness D, Freund GG. The TriPath care technologies FocalPoint
slide imager is very effective at identifying abnormal GYN cervical cytologies using SurePath prepared
slides [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):951.
Sass MA. SurePath Pap test: direct to vial performance and laboratory productivity [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;46(5):953.
Bolick DR, Staley BE, Ke Lin K. Establishing diagnostic curves to estimate the false negative proportion of
Paps due to low cellularity [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):965.
Van Aspert-van Erp AJ, van den Kieboom RA, Vooijs GP. Cytomorphologic features of cervical columnar
cell lesions in liquid-based cytology: a comparison study of conventional Pap smears and AutoCyte PREP
and ThinPrep specimens [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):86.
Beerman H, Kuenen-Boumeester V. Liquid-based cytology in routine daily practice [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;46(1):91.
Blokzijl JH. Thin layer: advantage in diagnostics? [abstract] Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):96.
Feoli F, Verdebout JM, Querton G, Verhest A. Cervical biopsy – cytology correlations using liquid based
thin-layer preparations (AutoCyte PREP) [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):250.
Rowe LR, Marshall J, Bentz JS. The PrepMate automated accessory: a comparison of automated and
manual methods of liquid-based gynecologic sample preparation [abstract]. Lab Med. 2002;5(33).
Bishop JW. Cellularity of AutoCyte PREP cervical cytology slides [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):813.
Studeman KD, Ioffe OB, Puszkiewica J, Sauvageot J, Henry MR. Sensitivity of AutoCyte PREP in cervical
samples of varying cellularity [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):813.
Royer MC, Smith KL. Comparison of AutoCyte PREP adequacy to the conventional Pap test [abstract]. Acta
Cytol. 2001;45(5):827.
Wilbur DC, Foti JA. Implementation of AutoCyte PREP: an initial experience [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2001;45(5):828.
Brumit MC, Boudreaux CW, King JA, Carter JE, Avery BK. AutoCyte PREP thin-layer Pap: consistency
between consecutive slide preparations [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):829.
Fairchild CL, Ota M, Masangcay C, Tench WD. Reproducibility of AutoCyte PREP in evaluating ASCUS and
LSIL [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):829.
Bolick DR. Trend analysis of quantitative adequacy data by age and diagnosis in AutoCyte PREP
specimens [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):830.
Kurtinecz MK. Recovery of transformation zone component using the Cervex-Brush for thin-layer Pap
versus spatula/cytobrush for conventional Pap smears [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2001;45(5):834.
7.2 FocalPoint Slide Profiler, FocalPoint GS Imaging System
Marshall CJ, Rowe LR, Bentz JS. Does FocalPoint categorization predict high-risk HPV positivity in patients
with ASCUS Pap tests? [abstract] Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):860.
Parker EM, Ffoti JA, Wilbur DC. FocalPoint (formerly AutoPap) location guided screening algorithms show
robust performance in classification of high grade lesions on SurePath (formerly AutoCyte PREP) liquidbased cervical cytology slides [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):952.
Rowe LR, Marshall CJ, Berry M, Bentz JS. Accuracy of the FocalPoint slide profiler for endocervical cell
detection in no further review cases [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):956.
Chacho MS, Schofield K, Kowalski D, Ocal I. Performance of the FocalPoint instrument in analyzing
conventional Pap smears from a general population [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(5):957.
Hughes T, Kardos T. Performance characteristics of the FocalPoint slide profiler examination with SurePath
Pap tests: experience with 9,186 cases with 100% cytotechnologist’s review [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;46(5):960.
Bishop JW. Liquid-based preparations: optimized samples for automated screening [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;46(1):95.
Hong SR, Jang HS, Kim HS, Kim YJ, et al. Sensitivity of the Autopap system location-guided screening
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):136.
Hong SR, Jang HS, Park JS, Kim HS, Shjm JU. Clinical experience of AutoPap primary screening system
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):142.
Marshall CJ, Rowe L, Bentz JS. Clinical significance of a QC review designation by the AutoPap primary
screening system [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):178.
Stani J, Breitenecker G. Results of AutoPap prescreened conventional smears [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;46(1):235.
Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a
potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility study
[abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2002;Jan:92A.
Mueller G, Neal M. Utilization of the AutoPap® primary screening system for QC [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2000;44(5):848.
Wilkerson M, Kurtinecz MK. Proficiency of the AutoPap® screening device at detecting endocervical cells
[abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2000;44(5):849.
7.3 Nongynecologic Cytology
Coon DR, Russell RA, Hecht JI, et al. Comparison of three methods of preparation of thyroid fine needle
aspiration samples [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47(5):876.
Bishop JW. Machine scoring of HER2/NEU immunohistochemical stains [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;45(1):95.
Drijkoningen M, Gabriel C. Cytology of effusions: the usefulness of AutoCyte PREP [abstract]. Acta Cytol.
2002;45(1):115.
Macville M, Wolf R, Wichelo C, Verbeek D, et al. Interphase cytogenetics on ThinPrep and AutoCyte PREP
monolayers from cervical scrapings [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;45(1):174.
Morinaga M, Yoshio S, Junko I, Mitsuaki O, Shuich K, Kanae S. Use of AutoCyte fix (ACF) 1000 in sputum
cytology [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;45(1):187.
Yamashita A, Shiina Y, Iijima J, Ohkoudo M, Kohri S, Sakuma K. Use of AutoCyte fix (ACF) 1000 in fine
needle aspiration of breast cytology [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 2002;45(1):259.
Kowalski DP, Rimm DL, Chacho M. Comparison of AutoCyte thin-layer technology vs ThinPrep for
nongynecological specimens [abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2002;Jan:77A.
Magilner MJ, Jensen CS, DeYoung BR. Immunocytochemistry of AutoCyte preparations of body fluids
[abstract]. Mod Pathol. 2002 Jan:79A.