Literature DB >> 16378026

Inflation of sensitivity of cervical cancer screening tests secondary to correlated error in colposcopy.

Robert G Pretorius1, Robert J Kim, Jerome L Belinson, Paul Elson, You-Lin Qiao.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the sensitivity of screening tests that miss small cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse (e.g., acetic acid-aided visual inspection) is inflated when the criterion standard (colposcopic-directed biopsy) misses the same small CIN 2 or worse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: One thousand nine hundred twenty-eight women were screened using acetic acid-aided visual inspection, self-tests, and direct tests for high-risk human papillomavirus, and using liquid-based cytologic screening. All women underwent colposcopy with biopsy. If a cervical quadrant had no lesion, a random biopsy at the squamocolumnar junction within that quadrant was obtained. All patients underwent endocervical curettage (ECC). Differences in sensitivity for CIN 2 or worse of screening tests were compared with criterion standards of colposcopically directed biopsy and colposcopically directed biopsy, random biopsy, plus ECC.
RESULTS: Sixty-two of 83 women with CIN 2 or worse were diagnosed by colposcopically directed biopsy, 19 by random biopsy, and 2 solely by ECC. Fifty-six of the 83 women had CIN 2 or worse involving 0 to 2 quadrants (2 with 0 quadrants were diagnosed solely by positive ECC) and 27 of 83 had CIN 2 or worse results involving 3 to 4 quadrants. Colposcopically directed biopsy detected 35 of 56 women (62.5%) with CIN 2 or worse involving 0 to 2 cervical quadrants and 27 of 27 women (100%) with CIN 2 or worse involving 3 to 4 quadrants (p < .005). Acetic acid-aided visual inspection and cytologic analysis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or cancer detected 35 of 56 (62.5%) and 36 of 56 (64.3%) lesions involving 0 to 2 quadrants and 27 of 27 (100%) (p < .005) and 24 of 27 (88.9%; p < .05) lesions involving 3 to 4 quadrants. The sensitivity of direct human papillomavirus tests (97.6%) and cytologic analysis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (94.0%) for CIN 2 or worse were high and unaffected by lesion size. When the criterion standard was changed from colposcopically directed biopsy, random biopsy, plus ECC to colposcopically directed biopsy, the sensitivity of acetic acid-aided visual inspection and cytologic analysis of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse for CIN 2 or worse increased from 75.9% to 85.5% (p > .1) and from 71.1% to 79.0% (p > .25). Sensitivities of other screening tests were unaffected by changing the criterion standard.
CONCLUSIONS: Criterion standards that miss the same CIN 2 or worse as the screening tests likely cause inflation of the sensitivity of those tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16378026     DOI: 10.1097/01.lgt.0000192694.85549.3d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis        ISSN: 1089-2591            Impact factor:   1.925


  17 in total

1.  Performance of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 17 population-based studies from China.

Authors:  Fang-Hui Zhao; Margaret Jane Lin; Feng Chen; Shang-Ying Hu; Rong Zhang; Jerome L Belinson; John W Sellors; Silvia Franceschi; You-Lin Qiao; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 41.316

2.  Neither one-time negative screening tests nor negative colposcopy provides absolute reassurance against cervical cancer.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Ana C Rodríguez; Robert D Burk; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Diane Solomon; Mark E Sherman; Jose Jeronimo; Mario Alfaro; Jorge Morales; Diego Guillén; Martha L Hutchinson; Sholom Wacholder; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 3.  Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening: A review.

Authors:  David Garner
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-10

Review 4.  Implementing community-based cervical cancer screening programs using visual inspection with acetic acid in India: A systematic review.

Authors:  Prajakta Adsul; Nitin Manjunath; Vijaya Srinivas; Anjali Arun; Purnima Madhivanan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Pooled analysis of the performance of liquid-based cytology in population-based cervical cancer screening studies in China.

Authors:  Qin-Jing Pan; Shang-ying Hu; Xun Zhang; Pu-wa Ci; Wen-hua Zhang; Hui-qin Guo; Jian Cao; Fang-hui Zhao; Alice Lytwyn; You-lin Qiao
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Prevalence of human papillomavirus and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in China: a pooled analysis of 17 population-based studies.

Authors:  Fang-Hui Zhao; Adam K Lewkowitz; Shang-Ying Hu; Feng Chen; Long-Yu Li; Qing-Ming Zhang; Rui-Fang Wu; Chang-Qing Li; Li-Hui Wei; Ai-Di Xu; Wen-Hua Zhang; Qin-Jing Pan; Xun Zhang; Jerome L Belinson; John W Sellors; Jennifer S Smith; You-Lin Qiao; Silvia Franceschi
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Impact of improved classification on the association of human papillomavirus with cervical precancer.

Authors:  Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Cosette M Wheeler; Nicolas Wentzensen; Patti E Gravitt
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Effectiveness of VIA, Pap, and HPV DNA testing in a cervical cancer screening program in a peri-urban community in Andhra Pradesh, India.

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

Review 9.  How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Guglielmo Ronco; Jack Cuzick; Nicolas Wentzensen; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 10.  Persistent human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jill Koshiol; Lisa Lindsay; Jeanne M Pimenta; Charles Poole; David Jenkins; Jennifer S Smith
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-05-15       Impact factor: 4.897

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.