Advantages/Disadvantages of ThinPrep vs Surepath

Quote

I find this website interesting as a person recently asked to review the purchasing of a service for LBC. Would I really want to purchase services from people like this? I have to say it is interesting to read prior to meeting the reps!! I look forward to it!

How about some professionalism in the industry?
 




Majority use thinprep cause it hit market first. That is the only reason it has held on.
Surepath is far superior in adequacy. Only problem with surepath is the slides being hard to screen. HPV testing and in vivo diagnostics are gonna take over anyways at some point so both sides are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
 


Anonymous said:
I am an OB-GYN and from experience I can tell you that this is not the superior product on the market. We give all new technology a try in our office as we did the Surepath pap test. My partners and myself felt that the convenience of the brush was not enough nor was the bloody specimen angle. Also after some research, there were some problems with the data supporting the product. We consulted the ACOG president locally and his opinions really mirrored that of our own. Also felt that the representative for Surepath was a bit dishonest at times.

JKR, MD FACOG
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you take a look at the CAP data--ThinPrep detects 2X more HSIL than SurePath. SP performs equal to the conventional pap, and in some cases the conventional outperformed SP.
 


Check out the CAP reporting data. ThinPrep detected 2x the amount of HSIL that SP did. SP detection rates were identical and in some cases even lower thant the conventional pap. If disease detection is your concern, the numbers speak for themselves.
 


I highly doubt that data. The ThinPrep slides are scantly cellular due to the filter being clogged up so how could it be better at detecting disease? The cells dont make it onto the slide due to the inferior filter technology. ThinPrep are much easier to screen though. I worked at lab comparing the two methods. The surepath slides were sent to another lab to be screened and were returned. The people screening those Surepath slides missed a lot of disease but the cells were on the slides. If the techs could actually spend time screenign the slides rather than hitting a quota, I think surepath would perform better.
 


dear webb pinkerton

you wrote this entry at 11:30 today. Which means you are a loser surepath rep(not that there are any winners). Without quest you do not exist.

Furthermore read the data yourself. 100% better hsil detection with ThinPrep over Surepath(conventional pap with no fda approvals).

Stop leaving brochures in offices without clinical data.
 


I sure dont work for Surepath or ThinPrep. I am actually a ThinPrep customer since 1998. The ThinPrep unsatisfactory/low cellularity specimens has been a dirty little secret in the industry for years. People know the filter technology is crap and that cells dont make it onto the slide. Ive seen that for years. That is why I am skeptical of any report claiming that ThinPrep is FAR superior. How could it be if the filter is clogged up with lubricant, blood, mucous etc? The ThinPrep slides are easier to screen compared to the Surepath I have seen. Surepath were crowded and hard to screen on the ones I saw but the cells were on the slide, just not picked up by the crappy lab screening them.
 


Web Pinkerton:

What clinician goes on cafepharma to bitch let alone about thinprep and claiming to be a thinprep customer?

"The residual material in the surepath vial may produce different diagnostic results" Dr Daye from your own surepath study.

The reason ThinPrep is better at detecting disease is due to our filter process that produces homogeneous slides rather than losing 33% of cells at the lab of which 8% are disease containing.

Truth be told the average ThinPrep customer according to CAP has an unsat rate of 1%, The lowest asc/sil ratio, highest hsil and lsil detection. But most importantly the fda approvals to back it up.

Please stop talking and study.
 


The cells are lost in the vial and dont make it on the slide for ThinPrep. Its funny, during CAP inspections many other ThinPrep labs I have inspected tell me that they dont abide by the unsat criteria because they would lose customers if they went by the book. I have heard that many times so that 1 percent number doesnt mean anything to me. Tumor necrosis even clogs up the filter which is a terrible problem considering tumors can be necrotic. Being unbiased I do believe Surepath is superior technology. If the roles had been reversed and Surepath came first, there is no way in hell ThinPrep would dominate the market. Most labs dont wanna switch at this point since Pap testing future is shaky at best.
I am not bitching about thinprep, i am just stating facts. The slides do look much better than surepath when there isnt limiting factors.
 


Pinkerton if I were you Id spend less time not making any sense ignoring disease detection and fda approvals and focus more on finding another job. I can tell you my surepath rep is running scared and is a laughing stock. A lot like.... you!
 


FDA approval doesnt mean anything and you know that. Did the FDA approve of reprocessing an unsatisfactory thinprep? NO they didnt. Its off the label at that point. I am staying with thinprep. I considered switching but since the pap test is gonna be a chapter in the history books in the near future, I decided it wasnt worth it. Dont even get me started on disease detection. HPV testing would be the standard of care if that was the goal. The only thing keeping the pap test going is the money doctors are making off the test by finding the lowest billing lab.
 


Anonymous said:
Check out the CAP reporting data. ThinPrep detected 2x the amount of HSIL that SP did. SP detection rates were identical and in some cases even lower thant the conventional pap. If disease detection is your concern, the numbers speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

Everyone on here are such idiots. The CAP data is not a "study" and actually, per the thinprep P.I., conventional picked up MORE cancer and had LESS unsats than TP. There was also a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology-Sandra Berinstein that looked at 25 clinical trials that proved TP had more ASCUS than conventional. Cervista is crap too-that has a PPV of 2.9%...but most of you probably don't even know what PPV means. If you read stuff other than what the company gives you, you may be a little smarter and add more value to your customers.
 


your an idiot. 2.9% ppv are you stupid? im done responding to surepath reps on our board. Cap data is a reflection of what the fda already said. thinprep is significantly better than the conventional pap(100% increase high grade detection). surepath is the conventional pap. and your ripping off patients and doctors.

as for ascus. who gives a shit. you set yourself up for disaster in offices when you claim lower ascus. ascus positivity rates between surepath and thinprep are unbelievable when doctors see the results.

go to hell
 




33% of ECCs trapped in the density gradient. Wow, your marketing people are great. Thats why TP had a 6.2% increase in no ECCs vs. conventional. Once again the spin is nice, just not true. SP only had a 1.8% increase in no ECCs.
 


33% of ECCs trapped in the density gradient. Wow, your marketing people are great. Thats why TP had a 6.4% increase in no ECCs vs. conventional. Once again the spin is nice, just not true. SP only had a 1.8% increase in no ECCs.
 






Um, the new pap test intervals are gonna kill ya both so you were already dead. Guess hologic wants to keep the turd afloat with a bunch of out of vial molecular testing. THat will be the only way to make any money.
 



Write your reply...
Top Bottom
Back
Quote