Hi Jennifer, I have used both systems, as a cytotech, processing tech, and as a supervisor. As a cytotech, there is less area of the slide to have to review so from that viewpoint it seems more efficient. The drawback for me was the size of the cells. For Gyn specimens, very small high grade cells can be difficult to detect without some sort of computer assisted system. The Focal Point system was supposed to provide this assistance but I found it somewhat unreliable. This was further complicated by the Focal Point being about 50% accurate in detecting endocervical cells. Labs that allowed specimens that automatically signed out cases the Focal Point deemed at the lowest risk for abnormal cells frequently had clinicians repeating paps due to there being no endocervical material detected. I found that non-gyn specimens processed using SurePath were very difficult for inexperienced techs and many pathologists simply did not trust that they were getting the appropriate sampling of cells. Very experienced cytotechs and some pathologists preferred SurePath for non-gyns but they are in the minority and I found them difficult and time consuming to review. As a processing tech, SurePath was very time consuming and if a lab has any kind of volume at all, had to have at least 2 technicians dedicated to nothing but processing them.
ThinPrep has a larger are to look at and those techs who are used to SurePath do not like to review them because the cells are quite a bit larger, and if doing manual screening, takes a bit longer to review. Use of the ThinPrep Imager has cut screening time down considerably. Time and statistical analysis has shown that the Imager is a very reliable instrument for indicating those areas of the slide where abnormal cells may be found. Criticism has been that the Imager sometimes misses cells with HPV and viral effect. Even so, the primary focus of many labs is to properly detect and report high grade lesions and for this the Imager is reliable. For me, non-gyn specimens were easier to review and displayed a good distribution of cells. A good many pathologists agree and are confident that the cell sampling adequate. As a processing tech, ThinPrep processing takes less time and less personnel than SurePath. If the T-5000 processor is ever released by the FDA for use in the US for gyn specimens, this time will be further reduced. In the end, the smaller cell distribution size offered by SurePath, while seemingly more efficient, requires more time to review for many techs due to the small size of the cells. ThinPrep currently offers a better solution to a majority of labs in terms of accuracy, time to prepare, and Imaging. Hope this was helpful. Steve -----Original Message----- From: histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu [mailto:histonet-boun...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu] On Behalf Of Jennifer MacDonald Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:20 PM To: histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu Subject: [Histonet] ThinPrep vs. SurePath Does anyone have an opinion as to why there seems to be many more ThinPreps out there than Sure Path? The SurePath seems more efficient, but I might be missing something. Thank you, Jennifer MacDonald _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet _______________________________________________ Histonet mailing list Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet