OBJECTIVE: To compare three screening tests for cervical neoplasia. METHOD: Women (6301) were screened simultaneously with cytology, cervicography and the acetic acid test (AAT). Biopsies were taken from the acetowhite lesions and every fifth seemingly normal cervix. Positive cases (both at screening and histology) were referred for colposcopy. The histology results served as the golden standard. RESULTS: Cytology was positive in 1.7% of cases, cervicography in 10.7% and the AAT in 17.8%. The sensitivity of cytology was 19.3%, of cervicography 41.8% and the AAT 49.4%. Corresponding specificities were 99.3%, 78.8% and 48.5%. In 23% of biopsies showing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade I--III), all three screening tests were negative. By combining the three tests, a sensitivity of 76.9% was achieved. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of cytology alone is not great enough for implementing as a screening test in a developing country where screening programs are often inadequate. Screening with a combination of tests, once or a few times per woman's life, is a more acceptable alternative since it allows for less screening events without sacrifying sensitivity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare three screening tests for cervical neoplasia. METHOD:Women (6301) were screened simultaneously with cytology, cervicography and the acetic acid test (AAT). Biopsies were taken from the acetowhite lesions and every fifth seemingly normal cervix. Positive cases (both at screening and histology) were referred for colposcopy. The histology results served as the golden standard. RESULTS: Cytology was positive in 1.7% of cases, cervicography in 10.7% and the AAT in 17.8%. The sensitivity of cytology was 19.3%, of cervicography 41.8% and the AAT 49.4%. Corresponding specificities were 99.3%, 78.8% and 48.5%. In 23% of biopsies showing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade I--III), all three screening tests were negative. By combining the three tests, a sensitivity of 76.9% was achieved. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of cytology alone is not great enough for implementing as a screening test in a developing country where screening programs are often inadequate. Screening with a combination of tests, once or a few times per woman's life, is a more acceptable alternative since it allows for less screening events without sacrifying sensitivity.
Authors: Groesbeck P Parham; Mulindi H Mwanahamuntu; Krista S Pfaendler; Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Daniel Myung; Gracilia Mkumba; Sharon Kapambwe; Bianca Mwanza; Carla Chibwesha; Michael L Hicks; Jeffrey S A Stringer Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Patti E Gravitt; Proma Paul; Hormuzd A Katki; Haripriya Vendantham; Gayatri Ramakrishna; Mrudula Sudula; Basany Kalpana; Brigitte M Ronnett; K Vijayaraghavan; Keerti V Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ramin Asgary; Philip Baba Adongo; Adanna Nwameme; Helen V S Cole; Ernest Maya; Mengling Liu; Karen Yeates; Richard Adanu; Olugbenga Ogedegbe Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Luisa Del Río-Ospina; Sara Cecilia Soto-De León; Milena Camargo; Darwin Andrés Moreno-Pérez; Ricardo Sánchez; Antonio Pérez-Prados; Manuel Elkin Patarroyo; Manuel Alfonso Patarroyo Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: N Li; J-F Shi; S Franceschi; W-H Zhang; M Dai; B Liu; Y-Z Zhang; L-K Li; R-F Wu; H De Vuyst; M Plummer; Y-L Qiao; G Clifford Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 7.640