ThinPrep
Operator’s Manual
®
Integrated Imager
ThinPrep® Integrated Imager
Operator’s Manual
Hologic, Inc.
250 Campus Drive
Marlborough, MA 01752 USA
Tel: 1-800-442-9892
1-508-263-2900
Fax: 1-508-229-2795
Web: www.hologic.com
For Use With Version 1.x.y Software
MAN-05283-001
Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a physician, or any other practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which the practitioner practices to use or order the use of
®
the device and are trained and experienced in the use of the ThinPrep
Integrated Imager.
The ThinPrep® Integrated Imager is a PC-based automated imaging and review system for use with
ThinPrep cervical cytology sample slides. The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is intended to help a
cytotechnologist or pathologist highlight areas of a slide for further manual review. The Product is
not a replacement for manual review. Determination of slide adequacy and patient diagnosis is at the
sole discretion of the cytotechnologists and pathologists trained by Hologic to evaluate ThinPrepprepared slides. If and only if it is finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the
Product sold to Customer hereunder was defective in design or contained a manufacturing defect
and that such defect was solely responsible for an error in diagnosis that caused harm to a patient,
Hologic shall indemnify Customer for the compensatory damages paid by Customer to discharge
the personal injury judgment with respect to Product.
© Hologic, Inc., 2018. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language or computer
language, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, magnetic, optical, chemical, manual,
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of Hologic, 250 Campus Drive, Marlborough,
Massachusetts, 01752, United States of America.
Although this guide has been prepared with every precaution to ensure accuracy, Hologic assumes no
liability for any errors or omissions, nor for any damages resulting from the application or use of this
information.
This product may be covered by one or more U.S. patents identified at
http://hologic.com/patentinformation
Hologic, PreservCyt, and ThinPrep are registered trademarks of Hologic, Inc. in the United States
and other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies.
Changes or modifications to this unit not expressly approved by the party responsible for
compliance could void the user’s authority to operate the equipment.
Document Number: AW-16644-001 Rev. 002
Instructions For Use
Instructions For Use
Operation Summary and Clinical Information
The ThinPrep® Integrated Imager
A. INTENDED USE
The Hologic ThinPrep® Integrated Imager is a device that uses computer imaging technology to assist in
primary cervical cancer screening of ThinPrep
®
Pap Test slides for the presence of atypical cells,
cervical neoplasia, including its precursor lesions (Low Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions, High
Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions), and carcinoma as well as all other cytologic criteria as defined
by the Bethesda System: Terminology for Reporting Results of Cervical Cytology
1
.
B. SUMMARY AND EXPLANATION OF THE SYSTEM
The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is an automated imaging and review system for use with ThinPrep Pap
Test slides. It combines imaging technology to identify microscopic fields of diagnostic interest with
automated stage movement of a microscope in order to locate these fields. In routine use, the ThinPrep
Integrated Imager selects 22 fields of view for a cytotechnologist (CT) to review. Following review of
these fields, the cytotechnologist will either complete the diagnosis if no abnormalities are identified or
review the entire slide if any abnormalities are identified. The ThinPrep Integrated Imager also allows
the physical marking of locations of interest for the cytopathologist.
C. PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION
The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is a combined system which uses computerized image analysis and
automated microscope location to assist a cytotechnologist or pathologist to identify areas of a slide that
are of most interest. Slides used with this system must first be prepared on the ThinPrep
or ThinPrep
be used as a conventional microscope when not used for ThinPrep
®
5000 processors, and stained with ThinPrep® Stain. The ThinPrep Integrated Imager can
®
imaging.
®
2000 System
The ThinPrep Integrated Imager images the entire cell spot of the slide in approximately 90 seconds.
The system acquires and processes image data from the slides to identify diagnostically relevant cells or
cell groups based on an imaging algorithm that considers cellular features and nuclear darkness. During
slide imaging, the alphanumeric slide accession identifier is recorded and the x and y coordinates of
22 fields of interest are stored in the system.
After image processing, the device acts as an automated microscope, presenting the 22 fields containing
the cells of interest to the cytotechnologist for review. The cytotechnologist uses the review control or
touch screen to step through each of the fields of interest (Autolocate). Additionally, the review scope
provides a method for automated marking of objects for further review. If the cytotechnologist identifies
any of these fields as containing abnormal objects, that field may be marked electronically. The
Integrated Imager will guide the cytotechnologist to conduct a review of the entire cell spot for any slide
that has had fields electronically marked (Autoscan).
The cytotechnologist determines specimen adequacy and the presence of infections during the review of
the 22 fields of view presented by the ThinPrep Integrated Imager. Either of two methods can be used to
determine specimen adequacy. The first method is to count cells and determine the average number of
cells in the 22 fields of view presented by the Imager. The second method is to count and determine the
average number of cells in 10 fields of view across the diameter of the cell spot. Either method will
enable the cytotechnologist to determine if the minimum cells, as recommended by Bethesda System
criteria, are present on the slide. At the conclusion of the slide review, electronically marked objects are
manually marked on the slide by the cytotechnologist. Slide information is stored in the computer
database including the x and y coordinates representing the electronically marked locations, and the
status of the slide is designated as “complete”.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 2 of 32
The cytotechnologist can review the slides immediately after each slide is imaged (sequential modality)
or, as an alternative workflow for labs, slides can be imaged in succession, and coordinates stored in the
computer database for later cytotechnologist or pathologist review (batched modality).
D. LIMITATIONS
Only personnel who have been appropriately trained should operate the ThinPrep Integrated Imager.
All slides that undergo primary automated screening with the Integrated Imager require manual
rescreening of the selected fields of view by a cytotechnologist or pathologist.
The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is only indicated for use with the ThinPrep Pap Test.
The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is only indicated for the ThinPrep Pap Test slides prepared with the
ThinPrep
indicated for the ThinPrep Pap Test slides prepared with the ThinPrep
ThinPrep
®
2000 System and the ThinPrep® 5000 processor. The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is not
®
slides with fiducial marks must be used.
®
3000 processor.
Slides must be stained using the ThinPrep Stain according to the applicable ThinPrep Integrated
Imager slide staining protocol.
Slides should be clean and free of debris before being placed on the system.
The slide coverslip should be dry and located correctly.
Slides that are broken or poorly coverslipped should not be used.
Slides used with the ThinPrep Integrated Imager must contain properly formatted accession number
identification information as described in the operator’s manual.
Slides once successfully imaged on the Integrated Imager cannot be imaged again.
The performance of the ThinPrep Integrated Imager using slides prepared from reprocessed sample
vials has not been evaluated; therefore it is recommended that these slides be manually reviewed.
E. WARNINGS
The Integrated Imager generates, uses, and can radiate radio frequency energy and may cause
interference to radio communications.
A Hologic authorized service representative must install the ThinPrep Integrated Imager.
F. PRECAUTIONS
Caution should be used when loading and unloading glass slides on the ThinPrep Integrated Imager
to prevent slide breakage and/or injury.
The Integrated Imager should be placed on a flat, sturdy surface away from any vibrating
machinery to assure proper operation.
G. PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
The ThinPrep Integrated Imager is technologically similar to the ThinPrep Imaging System. The
performance characteristics of the ThinPrep Integrated Imager were compared to the ThinPrep Imaging
System in a multi-center clinical study. The ThinPrep
®
Imaging System was compared to Manual
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 3 of 32
Review in a separate multi-center clinical study. Both clinical studies are described in the following
sections.
G.1 ThinPrep Imaging System Compared to Manual Review
A multi-center, two-armed clinical study was performed over an eleven (11) month period at four
(4) cytology laboratory sites within the United States
Center Trial Evaluating the Primary Screening Capability of the ThinPrep
2
. The objective of the study entitled “Multi-
®
Imaging System” was to
show that routine screening of ThinPrep Pap Test slides using the ThinPrep Imaging System is
equivalent to a manual review of ThinPrep slides for all categories used for cytologic diagnosis
(specimen adequacy and descriptive diagnosis) as defined by the Bethesda System criteria
1
.
The two-arm study approach allowed for a comparison of the cytologic interpretation (descriptive
diagnosis and specimen adequacy) from a single ThinPrep-prepared slide, screened first using
standard laboratory cervical cytology practices (Manual Review) and then after a 48-day time lag
were screened with the assistance of the ThinPrep Imaging System (Imager Review). A subset of
slides from the study were reviewed and adjudicated by a panel of three (3) independent
cytopathologists to determine a consensus diagnosis. The consensus diagnosis was used as a “gold
standard” for truth to evaluate the results of the study.
G.1.1 Laboratory and Patient Characteristics
Of the 10,359 subjects in the study, 9,550 met the requirements for inclusion in the descriptive
diagnosis analysis. During the study, 7.1% (732/10,359) slides could not be read on the Imager
and required a manual review during the Imager Review arm. Excessive number of air bubbles
on the slides was the leading contributor. Additional factors included focus problems, slide
density, slide identification read failures, slides detected out of position, multiple slides seated
within a cassette slot and slides that had already been imaged. The cytology laboratories
participating in the study were comprised of four centers. All sites selected had extensive
experience in the processing and evaluation of gynecologic ThinPrep slides, and were trained in
the use of the ThinPrep Imaging System. The study population represented diverse geographic
regions and subject populations of women who would undergo cervical screening with the
ThinPrep Imaging System in normal clinical use. These sites included both women being
routinely screened (screening population) and patients with a recent previous cervical
abnormality (referral population). The characteristics of the study sites are summarized in
Table 1.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 4 of 32
Table 1. Site Characteristics
Site 1 2 3 4
Screening (Low Risk)
Population
Referral (High Risk)
Population
HSIL+ prevalence
ThinPrep Pap Tests Per Year
Number of Cytotechnologists
Number of Cytotechnologists
in Study
Number of Cytopathologists
Number of Cytopathologists
in Study
88% 82% 90% 94%
12% 18% 10% 6%
1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6%
120,000 70,200 280,000 105,000
14 9 32 11
2 2 2 2
6 5 6 14
1 2 1 2
G.1.2 Descriptive Diagnosis Sensitivity and Specificity Estimates
A panel of three independent cytopathologists adjudicated slides from all discordant (one-grade
or higher cytologic difference) descriptive diagnosis cases (639), all concordant positive cases
(355) and a random 5% subset of the 8550 negative concordant cases (428). The
cytopathologists on the adjudication panel were board-certified, all of whom had a subspecialty
certification in cytopathology. Their experience levels in cytopathology ranged from 6 to 12
years. Two of the adjudicators were from university practices and one adjudicator was from a
private medical center. The volumes for the adjudicators’ institutions ranged from 12,000 to
30,000 ThinPrep Pap Tests annually.
A consensus diagnosis was defined as agreement by at least 2 of 3 cytopathologists. All slides
sent to the panel of cytopathologists were not identified by site nor ordered in any fashion.
When a consensus diagnosis could not be obtained by at least 2 of 3 cytopathologists, the full
panel of cytopathologists reviewed each case simultaneously using a multi-headed microscope
to determine a consensus diagnosis.
The adjudicated results were used as a “gold standard” to define the following major “true”
descriptive diagnosis classifications of the Bethesda System: Negative, ASCUS, AGUS, LSIL,
HSIL, Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SQ CA) and Glandular Cell Carcinoma (GL CA). Estimates
of sensitivity and specificity together with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the
Manual Review and Imager Review arms of the study. The differences in sensitivity and
specificity between the two arms, together with their 95% confidence intervals were also
calculated. Among the random 5% subset of 8,550 cases (428 slides) that were found to be
negative by both arms and adjudicated, there were 425 “true” negative and 3 “true” ASCUS
slides. A multiple imputation technique was used to adjust the numbers of true positives and
true negatives for the 8,550 negative concordant cases based on the 5% of cases that were
adjudicated
2
.
Table 2 summarizes the descriptive diagnosis sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95%
confidence intervals for all sites combined for “true” ASCUS+, LSIL+ and HSIL+.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 5 of 32
Table 2. Manual Review Versus Imager Review, Descriptive Diagnosis Summary
Sensitivity Specificity
Threshold
ASCUS+
LSIL+
HSIL+
UNSAT
Manual
(95% CI)
75.6%
(72.2% to 78.8%)
79.7%
(75.3% to 83.7%)
74.1%
(66.0% to 81.2%)
29.3%
(18.1% to 42.7%)
Imager
(95% CI)
82.0%
(78.8% to 84.8%)
79.2%
(74.7% to 83.2%)
79.9%
(72.2% to 86.2%)
13.8%
(6.1% to 25.4%)
Difference
(95% CI)
+6.4%
(2.6% to 10.0%)
-0.5%
(-5.0 % to 4.0%)
+5.8%
(-1.1% to 12.6%)
-15.5%
(-25.9% to 5.0%)
Manual
(95% CI)
97.6%
(97.2% to 97.9%)
99.0%
(98.8% to 99.2%)
99.4 %
(99.2% to 99.6%)
99.5%
(99.3% to 99.6%)
Imager
(95% CI)
97.8%
(97.4% to 98.1%)
99.1%
(98.9% to 99.3%)
99.6%
(99.5% to 99.7%)
99.8%
(99.7% to 99.9%)
Difference
(95% CI)
+0.2%
(-0.2% to 0.6%)
+0.09%
(-0.1% to 0.3%)
+0.2%
(0.06% to 0.4%)
+0.3%
(0.2% to 0.4%)
The results presented in Table 2 show that for ASCUS+, the increase in sensitivity of the Imager
Review over the Manual Review was statistically significant with the lower limit of the 95%
confidence interval being 2.6% for all sites combined. The observed difference between
sensitivities for ASCUS+ varied among the sites from –2.8% with a 95% confidence interval of
(–10.6%; 5.0%) to +14.4% with a 95% confidence interval of (8.2%; 20.5%). The difference in
specificity results between the Imager Review and the Manual Review was not statistically
significant with a 95% confidence interval of –0.2% to +0.6%. The observed differences
between specificities varied among the sites from –0.3% to +0.4%.
The results presented in Table 2 show that the difference between sensitivities of the Imager
Review and Manual Review arms for LSIL+ for all sites combined was not statistically
significant with a 95% confidence interval of –5.0% to +4.0%. The observed difference between
sensitivities for LSIL+ varied among the sites from –6.3% with a 95% confidence interval of
(–14.7%; 2.1%) to +8.1% with a 95% confidence interval of (–4.0%; 20.1%). The difference in
specificity results between the Imager Review and the Manual Review was not statistically
significant with a 95% confidence interval of –0.1% to +0.3%. The observed differences
between specificities varied among the sites from –0.4% to +0.6%.
The results presented in Table 2 show that the difference between sensitivities of the Imager
Review and Manual Review arms for HSIL+ for all sites combined was not statistically
significant with a 95% confidence interval of –1.1% to +12.6%. The observed difference
between sensitivities for HSIL+ varied among the sites from –2.5% with a 95% confidence
interval of (–15.4%; 10.4%) to +13.6% with a 95% confidence interval of (–0.7%; 28.0%). The
increase in specificity of the Imager Review over the Manual Review was statistically significant
with a 95% confidence interval of +0.06% to +0.4%. The observed differences between
specificities varied among the sites from –0.1% to +0.7%.
Table 3 shows the unadjudicated marginal frequencies data for benign cellular changes for all
sites combined.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 6 of 32
Table 3. Unadjudicated Marginal Frequencies – Summary of Descriptive Diagnosis
for Benign Cellular Changes – All Sites Combined
Manual Review Imager Review
Number of Patients: 9550 9550
Descriptive Diagnosis N % N %
Benign Cellular Changes: 405 4.2 293 3.1
Infection:
Trichomonas Vaginalis 8 0.1 8 0.1
Fungal organisms consistent with Candida spp. 47 0.5 31 0.3
Predominance of coccobacilli 71 0.7 60 0.6
Bacteria consistent with Actinomyces spp. 1 0.0 1 0.0
Cellular Changes associated with Herpes virus 1 0.0 1 0.0
Other Infection 1 0.0 0 0.0
Reactive Cellular Changes Associated with:
Inflammation 218 2.3 156 1.6
Atrophic with inflammation (atrophic vaginitis) 68 0.7 46 0.5
Radiation 0 0.0 0 0.0
Intrauterine contraceptive device (IUD) 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other Reactive Cellular Change 34 0.4 14 0.1
Note: Some patients had more than one diagnostic subcategory.
The Manual Review showed a higher rate of Benign Cellular Changes (405) than the Imager
Review cases (293).
®
Please refer to the ThinPrep
Imaging System Operation Summary and Clinical Information
(MAN-03938-001) for detailed information about the performance of ThinPrep Imaging
System.
G.2 ThinPrep Integrated Imager Compared to the ThinPrep Imaging System
A multi-center, two-armed clinical study was performed at three (3) sites within the United States.
The objective of the study entitled “Multi-Center Evaluation of the ThinPrep
was to show that routine screening of ThinPrep Pap Test slides prepared on the ThinPrep
System and the ThinPrep
®
5000 processor using the ThinPrep Integrated Imager is similar to the
review of ThinPrep slides using the ThinPrep Imaging System for all categories used for cytologic
diagnosis (specimen adequacy and descriptive diagnosis) as defined by the Bethesda System
criteria
1
.
The two-arm study approach allowed for a comparison of the cytologic interpretation (descriptive
diagnosis and specimen adequacy) from a single ThinPrep-prepared slide (of known diagnosis),
screened first using the Integrated Imager and then after two-week lag were screened with the
assistance of the ThinPrep Imaging System. The adjudicated diagnosis at enrollment was used as a
“gold standard” for truth to evaluate the results of the study.
®
Slides utilized in this study were processed on the ThinPrep
2000 System and the ThinPrep® 5000
processor. Study slides were produced, reviewed manually and adjudicated during the execution of a
previous study
2
.
All slides were reviewed independently for both study arms. The slides were randomized prior to
slide review in each study arm. Cytological diagnoses and specimen adequacy were determined in
accordance with the Bethesda System criteria for both arms of the study.
®
Integrated Imager”
®
2000
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 7 of 32
G.2.1 Laboratory and Patient Characteristics
The cytology laboratories participating in the study were comprised of three (3) centers. All
sites selected had extensive experience in the processing and evaluation of gynecologic
ThinPrep slides, and were trained in the use of the ThinPrep Integrated Imager.
Number of patients (planned and analyzed)
2520 slides (840 each site) were enrolled in this study. Six (6) out of 2520 (0.2%) slides were
excluded from review and analysis as they were broken and unreadable.
Basic demographic information was collected for each slide enrolled at each site to aid the
cytotechnologist in making a diagnosis for the resulting slides. A summary of this demographic
information is presented in Table 4 for all sites.
Table 4. Site Demographics
Site
Number
Age (yrs)
Median
# Hysterectomy
(% of enrolled)
# Postmenopausal
(% of enrolled)
1 36 yrs 11 (2.6%) 30 (7.1%)
2 33 yrs 15 (3.6%) 25 (6.0%)
3 37 yrs 25 (6.0%) 51 (12.1%)
Overall 35 yrs 51 (4.0%) 106 (8.4%)
Each slide was reviewed independently three (3) times at each site, by three (3) separate pairs of
cytotechnologists and pathologists using normal laboratory and clinical procedures. This
produced a total of 7542 diagnostic results. None of these results were excluded from analysis.
Main Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Study slides (two slides per case, one slide was prepared on the ThinPrep 2000 System and
another slide was prepared on the ThinPrep 5000 processor) were produced, reviewed manually
and adjudicated during the execution of a previous study
three sites included the following:
o NILM: 1260 slides from 630 cases
o ASC-US: 300 slides from 150 cases
o LSIL: 300 slides from 150 cases
2
. The ThinPrep Pap Test slides from
o ASC-H: 300 slides from 150 cases
o AGUS: 30 slides from 15 cases
o HSIL: 300 slides from 150 cases
o Cancers: 30 slides from 15 cases
Exclusion Criteria
Slide broken or rendered unreadable for the purposes of this study.
Criteria for Evaluation
The primary objective of this study was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood
ratios when diagnosing slides imaged and reviewed on the Integrated Imager (sequential
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 8 of 32
modality) and to compare with the ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS). The reference standard for
the slides in this study was pathologist adjudication consensus diagnosis from a previous study
G.2.2 Descriptive Diagnosis Sensitivity and Specificity Estimates
Abbreviations for Diagnostic Thresholds:
Category Partitions
Threshold Negative Positive
ASCUS+ NILM
LSIL+ NILM, ASCUS LSIL, ASC–H, AGUS, HSIL, Cancer
ASC–H+ NILM, ASCUS, LSIL ASC–H, AGUS, HSIL, Cancer
HSIL+
NILM, ASCUS, LSIL, ASC–H,
AGUS
The study results are presented in Table 5. In all abnormal categories, the sensitivity for the
Integrated Imager was higher than the ThinPrep Imaging System across all thresholds listed in
Table 5. There was a slight decrease in specificity for the Integrated Imager as compared to the
ThinPrep Imaging System.
Table 5. ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) Versus Integrated Imager,
Descriptive Diagnosis Summary (All Slides)
ASCUS, LSIL, ASC–H, AGUS, HSIL,
Cancer
HSIL, Cancer
2
.
Threshold
ASCUS+
LSIL+
ASC-H+
HSIL+
UNSAT
TIS
(95% CI)
86.0%
(84.7% to 87.3%)
77.8%
(76.0% to 79.6%)
73.3%
(70.4% to 75.9%)
59.6%
(55.9% to 63.3%)
78.9%
(71.6% to 84.7%)
In addition, the data is presented below stratified by the type of processor used (ThinPrep 2000
System and ThinPrep 5000 processor). In all abnormal cases, the sensitivity for the Integrated
Imager was higher than the ThinPrep Imaging System across all thresholds. There was a slight
decrease in specificity for the Integrated Imager as compared to the ThinPrep Imaging System.
Sensitivity Specificity
Integrated
Imager
(95% CI)
89.8%
(88.6% to 90.9%)
83.7%
(82.0% to 85.2%)
80.7%
(78.1% to 83.0%)
67.5%
(63.9% to 70.9%)
77.6%
(70.2% to 83.5%)
Difference
(95% CI)
3.8%
(2.6% to 5.0%)
5.8%
(4.1% to 7.5%)
7.4%
(4.7% to 10.1%)
7.9%
(4.5% to 11.2%)
-1.4%
(-7.3% to 4.5%)
TIS
(95% CI)
89.8%
(88.9% to 90.6%)
92.5%
(91.7% to 93.2%)
92.7%
(92.0% to 93.3%)
95.1%
(94.6% to 95.6%)
98.4%
(98.1% to 98.6%)
Integrated
Imager
(95% CI)
87.9%
(86.9% to 88.8%)
90.6%
(89.8% to 91.4%)
91.1%
(90.4% to 91.8%)
94.0%
(93.4% to 94.6%)
98.4%
(98.1% to 98.7%)
Difference
(95% CI)
-1.9%
(-2.8% to -1.0%)
-1.9%
(-2.6% to -1.2%)
-1.6%
(-2.1% to -1.0%)
-1.1%
(-1.6% to -0.6%)
0.1%
(-0.2% to 0.3%)
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 9 of 32
Table 6. ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) Versus Integrated Imager (I2),
Descriptive Diagnosis Summary (ThinPrep 2000 System-processed Slides Only)
Sensitivity Specificity
Threshold
ASCUS+
LSIL+
ASC-H+
HSIL+
UNSAT
TIS
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
85.7%
[1209/1411]
(83.8% to 87.4%)
77.6%
[820/1057]
(75.0% to 80.0%)
73.1%
[370/506]
(69.1% to 76.8%)
59.0%
[214/363]
(53.8% to 63.9%)
83.3%
[65/78]
(73.5% to 90.0%)
I2
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
90.0%
[1270/1411]
(88.3% to 1.5%)
84.3%
[891/1057]
(82.0% to 86.4%)
81.8%
[414/506]
(78.2% to 84.9%)
70.2%
[255/363]
(65.4% to 74.7%)
82.1%
[64/78]
(72.1% to 89.0%)
Difference
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
4.3%
[61/1411]
(2.6% to 6.1%)
6.7%
[71/1057]
(4.3% to 9.1%)
8.7%
[44/506]
(4.9% to 12.5%)
11.3%
[41/363]
(6.4% to 16.1%)
-1.3%
[1/78]
(-8.9% to 6.2%)
TIS
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
90.3%
[2006/2222]
(89.0% to 91.4%)
92.7%
[2388/2576]
(91.6% to 93.6%)
92.8%
[2903/3127]
(91.9% to 93.7%)
95.4%
[3118/3270]
(94.6% to 96.0%)
98.6%
[3647/3699]
(98.2% to 98.9%)
I2
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
88.9%
[1975/2222]
(87.5% to 90.1%)
91.3%
[2353/2576]
(90.2% to 92.4%)
91.1%
[2849/3127]
(90.1% to 92.1%)
94.2%
[3081/3270]
(93.4% to 95.0%)
98.6%
[3649/3699]
(98.2% to 99.0%)
Difference
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
-1.4%
[-31/2222]
(-2.7% to -0.1%)
-1.4%
[-35/2576]
(-2.3% to -0.4%)
-1.7%
[-54/3127]
(-2.5% to -1.0%)
-1.1%
[-37/3270]
(-1.8% to -0.5%)
0.1%
[2/3699]
(-0.3% to 0.4%)
Table 7. ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) Versus Integrated Imager (I2),
Descriptive Diagnosis Summary (ThinPrep 5000 Processor-processed Slides Only)
Sensitivity Specificity
Threshold
ASCUS+
LSIL+
ASC-H+
HSIL+
UNSAT
TIS
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
86.4%
[1190/1377]
(84.5% to 88.1%)
78.1%
[796/1019]
(75.5% to 80.5%)
73.4%
[354/482]
(69.3% to 77.2%)
60.4%
[194/321]
(55.0% to 65.6%)
73.9%
[51/69]
(62.5% to 82.8%)
I2
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
89.6%
[1234/1377]
(87.9% to 91.1%)
83.0%
[846/1019]
(80.6% to 85.2%)
79.5%
[383/482]
(75.6% to 82.8%)
64.5%
[207/321]
(59.1% to 69.5%)
72.5%
[50/69]
(61.0% to 81.6%)
Difference
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
3.2%
[44/1377]
(1.6% to 4.8%)
4.9%
[50/1019]
(2.5% to 7.3%)
6.0%
[29/482]
(2.2% to 9.8%)
4.0%
[13/321]
(-0.6% to 8.6%)
-1.4%
[1/69]
(-11.3% to 8.4%)
TIS
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
89.3%
[1989/2228]
(87.9% to 90.5%)
92.2%
[2385/2586]
(91.1% to 93.2%)
92.5%
[2888/3123]
(91.5% to 93.3%)
94.9%
[3116/3284]
(94.1% to 95.6%)
98.2%
[3628/3696]
(97.7% to 98.5%)
I2
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
86.8%
[1935/2228]
(85.4% to 88.2%)
89.9%
[2324/2586]
(88.6% to 91.0%)
91.1%
[2845/3123]
(90.0% to 92.0%)
93.8%
[3082/3284]
(93.0% to 94.6%)
98.2%
[3630/3696]
(97.7% to 98.6%)
Difference
[# of reads]
(95% CI)
-2.4%
[-54/2228]
(-3.8% to -1.1%)
-2.4%
[-61/2586]
(-3.4% to -1.4%)
-1.4%
[-43/3123]
(-2.2% to -0.6%)
-1.0%
[-34/3284]
(-1.7% to -0.3%)
0.1%
[2/3696]
(-0.3% to 0.4%)
Tables 8 through 14 show the performance of TIS review and Integrated Imager review compared to
adjudicated diagnosis made by the adjudication panel (truth, from previous study) for the following
major descriptive diagnosis classifications of the Bethesda System: NILM, ASCUS, LSIL, ASC-H,
AGUS, HSIL and Cancer.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 10 of 32
Table 8. “True Negative” (NILM) Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated NILM
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
75 29 2 0 1 1 0 0
25 3735 147 5 13 7 3 0
5 187 123 11 16 1 1 0
0 21 22 14 2 0 2 0
1 29 20 1 23 1 4 0
1 15 3 0 0 5 0 0
0 8 4 0 10 0 10 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
Table 9. “True ASCUS” Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated ASCUS
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
1 143 36 7 4 5 2 1
0 76 113 23 15 0 3 0
1 11 33 45 5 0 2 0
0 16 18 5 37 1 19 0
1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0
0 5 6 5 19 0 53 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
Table 10. “True LSIL” Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated LSIL
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 13 11 8 0 0 1 0
0 18 107 49 4 0 1 0
0 19 86 516 10 0 17 0
0 3 12 13 16 1 16 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 3 40 11 2 107 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 11 of 32
Table 11. “True ASC-H” Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated ASC-H
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 5 4 0 2 1 1 0
0 9 16 1 13 0 4 0
0 1 3 2 7 0 1 0
0 4 14 1 31 1 9 0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 4 2 17 0 31 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
Table 12. “True AGUS” Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated AGUS
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 30 2 0 1 3 0 0
0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 4 1 2 0
2 10 3 0 1 12 1 1
1 2 2 0 4 3 9 0
2 2 1 0 0 1 1 9
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
Table 13. “True HSIL” Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated HSIL
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 12 1 7 0 2 1
0 2 7 28 7 0 5 0
0 0 16 13 58 1 23 2
0 1 3 0 1 1 3 0
0 3 12 26 44 6 243 5
0 0 0 1 0 1 16 12
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 12 of 32
Table 14. “True Cancer” Contingency Table (for All Sites Combined)
Overall Adjudicated Cancer
TIS vs. I2
TIS
UNSAT NILM ASCUS LSIL ASC-H AGUS HSIL Cancer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 6 0 8
0 0 0 0 1 0 19 1
0 0 0 0 0 4 5 63
I2
UNSAT
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
Cancer
Table 15 shows the descriptive diagnosis marginal frequencies for benign cellular changes for
all sites combined. Each slide was read three times, first by a cytotechnologist and then by a
pathologist.
Table 15. Unadjudicated Marginal Frequencies –
Summary of Descriptive Diagnosis for Benign Cellular Changes –
All Sites Combined
Number of Reads
TIS Review I2 Review
7542 7542
Descriptive Diagnosis N % N %
Benign Cellular Changes 402 5.3% 420 5.6%
Organisms:
Trichomonas vaginalis
Fungal organisms consistent with Candida spp.
Shift in Flora s/o bacterial vaginosis
Bacteria consistent with Actinomyces spp.
Cellular changes consistent with Herpes virus
Other infection
Other Non-Neoplastic Findings
Reactive cellular changes assoc. w/ inflammation
Atrophy
Reactive cellular changes assoc. w/ radiation
Reactive cellular changes assoc. w/ IUD
Glandular cells status post hysterectomy
Endometrial cells in a woman ≥ 45 yrs of age
20 0.3% 28 0.4%
122 1.6% 128 1.7%
183 2.4% 208 2.8%
2 0.0% 3 0.0%
2 0.0% 1 0.0%
0 0.0% 0 0.0%
0.0%
34 0.5% 16 0.2%
33 0.4% 26 0.3%
0 0.0% 0 0.0%
0 0.0% 1 0.0%
0 0.0% 0 0.0%
6 0.1% 9 0.1%
The Integrated Imager showed a slightly higher rate of Benign Cellular Changes (420 out of
7542, or 5.6%) than TIS Review (402 out of 7542, or 5.3%), however this was not statistically
significant.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity of Integrated Imager for review of ThinPrep 2000 slides and
ThinPrep 5000 slides are similar to the sensitivity and specificity of the ThinPrep Imaging
System.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 13 of 32
G2.3 Analytical performance of Integrated Imager
Within-instrument Reproducibility
Analytical performance was evaluated by reviewing the content of the 22 fields of view (FOVs)
presented by the Integrated Imager. Evaluations were carried out by cytotechnologists. No
pathologist reviewed the FOV. Full slide reviews were not carried out for this evaluation.
Within-instrument reproducibility results were collected by three (3) cytotechnologists who
performed review of slides three (3) times on the same instrument with a washout period of a
minimum of 14 days.
The 260 slides used in this study were previously prepared from ThinPrep specimens and had an
adjudicated cytology diagnosis.
The highest ranked diagnosis from review of 22 FOVs and number of abnormal FOVs were
recorded for each of three runs for both TIS review and I2 review.
In Table 16, the within-instrument results are summarized for each diagnostic category of slides
(according to adjudicated truth results). For each grouping, the following metrics are reported:
% Abnormal
The proportion of slides for which any abnormal FOVs were observed.
(For NILM or UNSAT slides, the % Normal column is used to record the proportion that are
not abnormal).
% Category+
The proportion of slides for which at least one FOV was observed with content of the slide’s
true category or higher.
% N/A
The proportion of slides in that category that are excluded from analysis (slide not able to be
imaged by imager or missing data)
Abnormal FOV, % zero
The proportion of slides for which zero abnormal FOV were observed.
Abnormal FOV, Median
The median number of abnormal FOV observed (out of 22 total).
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 14 of 32
Table 16. Summarized Results of Within-instrument Study
Dx Imager
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
CANCER
UNSAT
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
%
Abnormal% Category+% Normal % N/A
69.6% 11.0% 70.4% 0
78.1% 4.3% 78.4% 0
Abnormal FOV
% zero Median
75.9% 75.9% 13.3% 25.0% 6
71.9% 71.9% 5.0% 28.1% 7
97.3% 93.2% 3.3% 2.8% 14
96.0% 94.0% 0.7% 4.0% 15
93.3% 86.7% 0.0% 6.7% 11.5
100% 83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 14
63.0% 51.9% 6.7% 35.7% 2
55.6% 48.1% 10.0% 44.4% 2
98.0% 77.3% 0.0% 2.0% 20
97.3% 71.3% 0.7% 2.7% 20
100% 46.7% 0.0% 0.0% 22
100% 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 22
72.2% 40.0% 72.2% 0
85.7% 36.7% 94.7% 0
Between-instrument Reproducibility
Between-instrument reproducibility results were derived from the clinical study. In the clinical
study, three (3) cytotechnologist/pathologist pairs reviewed slides on different instruments.
In Table 17, the between-instrument results are summarized for each diagnostic category of
slides (according to adjudicated truth results). For each grouping, the following metrics are
reported:
% Abnormal
The proportion of slides for which any abnormal diagnosis was recorded.
(For NILM or UNSAT slides, the % Normal column is used to record the proportion that are
not abnormal).
% Category+
The proportion of slides for which the site diagnosis was equal to or higher than the slide’s
adjudicated category.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 15 of 32
Table 17. Summarized Results of Between-instrument Study
Dx Imager
NILM
ASCUS
LSIL
ASC-H
AGUS
HSIL
CANCER
UNSAT
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
TIS
I2
%
Abnormal% Category+% Normal
-- -- 90.0%
-- -- 88.1%
64.4% 64.4% --
71.7% 71.7% --
95.0% 75.0% --
96.9% 80.6% --
87.7% 62.6% --
92.8% 63.6% --
53.8% 37.6% --
67.5% 57.3% --
97.7% 54.7% --
99.3% 64.7% -100% 63.2% -100% 63.2% --
-- -- 95.2%
-- -- 93.2%
G2.4 Cytotechnologist Screening Rates During Clinical Study
During the study, nine (9) cytotechnologists (CTs) recorded the number of hours they worked
each day and the number of slides screened for both the TIS and I2 reviews. The experience
levels of the cytologists ranged from 4 to 30 years. During the study, the cytotechnologist’s
screening times for both TIS Review and I2 Review included automated screening of the 22
fields of view, full slide review if the automated screening was not applicable, and automated
screening of the 22 fields of view followed by full slide review when abnormal cells were
identified during automated screening. The number of hours each cytotechnologist screened
slides per day varied due to logistical issues and scheduling. Only the sequential modality of I2
Review was evaluated during clinical study.
These data are summarized in Table 18 below.
Note: These numbers represent total number of slides and does not consider the review type;
Field of view (FOV) only, Full Manual Review (FMR), or FOV+FMR. These rates are
lower than would be routinely observed in clinical practice as the number of abnormal
cases in this clinical study was much higher than typically observed in normal clinical
practice (50% versus 10–20%).
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 16 of 32
Table 18. CT Screening Rates
TIS
Site 1
CT 1
CT 2
CT 3
Site 2
CT 1
CT 2
CT 3
Site 3
CT 1
CT 2
CT 3
Average Slides/Hour
9.8 9.9
10.4 9.7
11.1 8.1
6.2 6.1
9.0 6.4
9.1 6.5
9.2 6.6
9.9 6.8
10.1 6.5
Average Slides/Hour
I2
Combined Median 9.8 6.6
100% 67%
In this study, the number of equivalent slides reviewed could not be determined as the
review type was not tracked.
CTs using the Integrated Imager scanned and reviewed 67% of the slides that CTs reviewed
when using TIS.
Note: The time recorded for the TIS-reviewed slides does not account for the scanning time.
The scanning time adds approximately 90 seconds per slide when using the Integrated
Imager Sequential Modality.
G2.5 Cytotechnologist Timing Study (Batched and Sequential Modalities)
An additional study “Cytotechnologist Screening Time Study ThinPrep® Integrated Imager” was
performed to characterize the screening volumes for cytotechnologists (CTs) when assistive
imaging is implemented as part of the slide review process. These data were collected using the
Integrated Imager in two ways:
1. Each slide was imaged and then reviewed by a CT using the Integrated Imager. This is
referred to as Sequential Modality in this study (i.e., imaging and slide review is performed
consecutively, by the CT).
2. All slides were imaged as a batch using the Integrated Imager and then the CT reviewed
slides as a batch. This is referred to as Batched Modality in this study. In batched modality,
imaging of slides is performed in advance, separate from the slide review.
Three (3) CTs participated in this study. The CTs reviewed slides over three (3) days (screening
slides for an 8-hour day) for each arm of the study. Slides were imaged and reviewed
independently by each of the three CTs.
®
All slides were prepared from ThinPrep
ThinPrep processor, and stained with ThinPrep Stain. Sets of 400 randomized slides per CT,
each with approximately 10% abnormal diagnosis were provided in order to fully occupy a CT
for three (3) full days of screening. The CTs were blinded to the diagnoses.
A minimum one-week “
washout period” occurred between study arms for each CT.
Table 19 shows the total breakdown of the types of reviews performed in the CT Timing Study.
specimens of known cytology diagnoses, on a
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 17 of 32
Sequential Review Batched Review
CT #1 CT #2 CT #3 Overall CT #1 CT #2 CT #3 Overall
Total # slides
reviewed
Table 19. Total Slides Reviewed by Review Type / CT
(% Autoscan = #FOV+FMR / Total # Slides Reviewed over 3 Days)
255 285 300 840 365 340 353 1058
# FOV only
# FOV+FMR
# FMR Only
% Autoscan
Referral
212 179 239 630 308 226 265 799
42 100 37 179 51 109 75 235
1 6 4 11 6 5 13 24
16% 35% 19% 24% 14% 32% 21% 22%
The results are shown in Table 20. The median number of slides screened per day when the
Integrated Imager in Sequential Modality was used for screening and reviewing of slides was
92 slides. CTs using the Integrated Imager in Batched Modality reviewed 86% of the maximum
number of slides that CTs could have reviewed when using TIS.
Table 20. Cytotechnologist Daily Slide Review Rates
# Slides Reviewed
CT Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
87 80 88 87
90 100 95 95
92 108 100 100
Sequential
Modality
CT #1
CT #2
CT #3
Daily
Median
Overall Daily
Median
92
(67%*)
119 123 123 123
124 106 110 110
119 120 114 119
Batched
Modality
CT #1
CT #2
CT #3
* Percentage with regards to TIS being 100%.
The agreement of the CT diagnosis was compared to the adjudicated results and are shown in
Table 21. High rates of agreement in diagnosis with the adjudicated slide results supports the
clinical utility of this study.
119
(86%*)
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 18 of 32
Table 21. PPA and NPA Results by Cytotechnologist Based on Adjudicated Results.
(Positive Results Mean ASC-US+)
CT #1
CT #2
CT #3
Overall
Sequential Modality Batched Modality
PPA NPA PPA NPA
100% 97% 97% 96%
100% 76% 100% 79%
91% 94% 100% 90%
97% 89% 99% 89%
Workload is defined by CLIA as a maximum limit of 100 slides in no less than an 8-hour
workday. This refers to a full manual review of 100 slides.
When using automated Imaging systems, users may need to review only a portion of the slide in
order to make a diagnosis of NILM, thereby decreasing the time needed for CT review.
Conversely, in cases where abnormality is present, the partial slide review is followed by a full
manual review, leading to a longer CT review time. In both cases, different values are used to
account for the difference in review times in order to arrive at slide workload estimates. (See
Tables 22 and 23.)
When using the Sequential Modality, the Integrated Imager scans the slide in approximately
90 seconds. This time should be considered when determining the value used for workload
calculations.
When using the Batched Modality, the scanning time is not considered in the review time, and
as such, more slides can be reviewed in an 8-hour day.
In order to help laboratories determine the workload, based on the number of slides reviewed
with FOV only and FOV+FMR, for their cytotechnologists when using the Integrated Imager,
laboratories should use the following method in Table 22 and Table 24 for Sequential
Modality and Table 23 and Table 25 for Batched Modality when calculating workload:
Tables 24 and 25 are intended to help individual cytotechnologists keep an on-going tally of the
FOV only and FOV+FMR slides screened during each workday.
Table 22. Values for Calculating Workload,
Integrated Imager, Sequential Modality
FMR = 1 slide
FOV = 0.85 slide
FMR + FOV = 1.85 slides
Upper Limit = 100 slides
When using Sequential Modality, use the following equation for determining workload:
[(# slides FMR) (1) + (# slides FOV) (0.85) + (# slides FOV+FMR) (1.85)] = 100 slides
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 19 of 32
Table 23. Values for Calculating Workload,
Integrated Imager, Batched Modality
FMR = 1 slide
FOV = 0.65 slide
FMR + FOV = 1.65 slides
Upper Limit = 100 slides
When using Batched Modality, use the following equation for determining workload:
[(# slides FMR) (1) + (# slides FOV) (0.65) + (# slides FOV+FMR) (1.65)] = 100 slides
®
Note: The ThinPrep
Integrated Imager workload limit in an 8-hour workday includes
all activities needed to process the cases, not exclusively time spent using the
microscope:
Screening 22 Fields of View
Full manual slide review using the Autoscan feature
Review clinical history
Record results and triage appropriately
Slides where only 22 Fields of View (FOV) are used for diagnosis should be considered as
less than a full slide.
o When using the Sequential Modality, a slide should be considered as 0.85 of a slide.
o When the Batched Modality is used, a slide should be considered 0.65 of a slide.
Slides where full manual review (FMR) is performed using either manual stage indexing, or
with the Autoscan feature should be considered as one (1) slide (as mandated by CLIA’88
for manual screening).
Slides where both FOV review and an FMR are conducted should be considered as :
o 1.85 slides when using Sequential Modality,
o 1.65 slides when using Batched Modality.
If less than an 8-hour workday is practiced, the following formula must be applied to
determine the maximum number of slides to be reviewed during that workday:
Note: ALL laboratories should have a clear standard operation procedure for documentation
of their method of workload counting and for establishing workload limits.
It is the responsibility of the Technical Supervisor to evaluate and set workload limits for
individual cytotechnologists based on laboratory clinical performance.
8
100
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 20 of 32
Note: The manual workload limit does not supersede the CLIA requirement of 100 slides in
a 24-hour period in no less than an 8-hour day. When conducting manual review, refer to
the CLIA requirements for calculating workload limits. Manual review includes the
following types of slides:
o Slides reviewed on the ThinPrep Imaging System using the Autoscan feature
o Slides reviewed without the ThinPrep Imaging System
o Non-gynecologic slides.
o According to CLIA ’88, these workload limits should be reassessed every six months.
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 21 of 32
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 22 of 32
Table 24. Screening Work Completion Look up Table – Integrated Imager, Sequential Modality
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 23 of 32
Table 24. Screening Work Completion Look up Table – Integrated Imager, Sequential Modality, continued
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 24 of 32
Table 24. Screening Work Completion Look up Table – Integrated Imager, Sequential Modality, continued
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 25 of 32
Table 24. Screening Work Completion Look up Table – Integrated Imager, Sequential Modality, continued
MAN-05359-001 -001 Rev. 001 page 26 of 32
Table 25. Screening Work Completion Look up Table – Integrated Imager, Batched Modality
Loading...