Physician's Comfort Level and Satisfaction Study With The e2TM Collector Compared to the Spatula/CytoBrush Technique

NCT00496314 | Terminated

• 1 other identifier: 12-20-06
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 30
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

A study which assesses the physician's comfort level and satisfaction when using the e2TM Collector compared to the Spatula/SytoBrush technique.

Conditions

Cervical Cell Collection

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Physician comfort level and satisfaction when using the e2TM Collector compared to the standard spatula/cytobrush.

  Each physician will be surveyed after first and last use of the e2TM collector as well as three more times spaced at near regular intervals in between.

Interventions

e2TM Cervical Cell Collector DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Every Physician who will participate in the two CytoCore prospective studies assessing the safety and efficacy of the e2TM Collector
• Each physician will have used the Collector 15 - 25 times
• Each physician will have signed the Consent form prior to using the Collector for the first time.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• CytoCore, Inc.: lead
• University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

University Hospital CASE Medical Center

Cleveland, Ohio, 44106, United States

Location

Related Publications (15)

• Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, Herrero R, Castellsague X, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ; International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 6;348(6):518-27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021641.

  PMID: 12571259 BACKGROUND

• Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(10):954-62. Epub 2001 Nov 1.

  PMID: 11693978 BACKGROUND

• Umland B, Waterman R, Wiese W, Duban S, Mennin S, Kaufman A. Learning from a rural physician program in China. Acad Med. 1992 May;67(5):307-9. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199205000-00004. No abstract available.

  PMID: 1575861 BACKGROUND

• Holowaty P, Miller AB, Rohan T, To T. RESPONSE: re: natural history of dysplasia of the uterine cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Aug 18;91(16):1420A-1421. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.16.1420a. No abstract available.

  PMID: 10451450 BACKGROUND

• Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N; Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002 Apr 24;287(16):2114-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.16.2114.

  PMID: 11966386 BACKGROUND

• Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000 May 16;132(10):810-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-10-200005160-00009.

  PMID: 10819705 BACKGROUND

• Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol. 1995 Apr 1;141(7):680-9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117485.

  PMID: 7702044 BACKGROUND

• Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, Putaud I, Mangeonjean C, Lorenzato M, Nazeyrollas P, Gabriel R, Quereux C, Birembaut P. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer. 2001 Jun 15;84(12):1616-23. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1845.

  PMID: 11401314 BACKGROUND

• 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 modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(13):1-207, iii. doi: 10.3310/hta9130.

  PMID: 15774236 BACKGROUND

• Buntinx F, Brouwers M. Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies. BMJ. 1996 Nov 23;313(7068):1285-90. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1285.

  PMID: 8942687 BACKGROUND

• Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G, Kitchener HC. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1763-70. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)02353-3.

  PMID: 10577637 BACKGROUND

• Martin-Hirsch P, Jarvis G, Kitchener H, Lilford R. Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2000(2):CD001036. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001036.

  PMID: 10796736 BACKGROUND

• Selvaggi SM, Guidos BJ. Specimen adequacy and the ThinPrep Pap Test: the endocervical component. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000 Jul;23(1):23-6. doi: 10.1002/1097-0339(200007)23:13.0.CO;2-K.

  PMID: 10907927 BACKGROUND

• Marchand L, Mundt M, Klein G, Agarwal SC. Optimal collection technique and devices for a quality pap smear. WMJ. 2005 Aug;104(6):51-5.

  PMID: 16218317 BACKGROUND

• Koss LG. Evolution in cervical pathology and cytology: a historical perspective. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2000;21(6):550-4. No abstract available.

  PMID: 11214608 BACKGROUND

Study Officials

• Jay Pinkerton, MD

  University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: CASE ONLY
• Time Perspective: PROSPECTIVE
• Sponsor Type: INDUSTRY

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: July 2, 2007
• First Posted: July 4, 2007
• Study Start: May 1, 2007
• Study Completion: January 1, 2008
• Last Updated: June 17, 2008

Record last verified: 2008-06

Locations

US (1)