OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of a novel optical detection system (ODS) as an adjunct to colposcopy increases the detection of biopsy-confirmed CIN 2,3. METHODS: This is a multicenter two-arm randomized trial comparing colposcopy alone with colposcopy plus a pre-commercial ODS system that utilizes fluorescence, white light tissue reflectance, and cervical video imaging. Patients were recruited from 13 colposcopy clinics in a variety of practice settings. 2299 women referred for the evaluation of an abnormal cervical cytology were randomized with stratification by cytology; subsequently 113 women were excluded for a variety of reasons. The main study outcomes were differences in true-positive rates (CIN 2,3 and cancer identified) and false-positive rates between the study arms. RESULTS: The true-positive (TP) rates were 14.4% vs. 11.4% (p=0.035, one-sided) for the combined colposcopy and ODS arm compared to colposcopy-only arm, respectively, in women with either an atypical squamous cell (ASC) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology result. TP rates were similar between the two arms among women referred for the evaluation of HSIL. The 26.5% gain in true-positives observed with the use of ODS and colposcopy among women referred for an ASC or LSIL cytology was achieved with only a fractional increase in number of biopsies obtained per patient (0.30) and a modest increase in false-positive rate (4%). In the combined colposcopy and ODS arm among women with ASC or LSIL, the PPV of biopsies indicated by ODS was 15.0% and the PPV of biopsies indicated by colposcopy was 15.2%. Joint hypothesis testing indicates that ODS and colposcopy provides benefit compared to colposcopy alone among women with ASC or LSIL. CONCLUSIONS: Combining ODS with colposcopy provides a clinically meaningful increase in the detection of CIN 2,3 in women referred for the evaluation of mildly abnormal cytology results.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the use of a novel optical detection system (ODS) as an adjunct to colposcopy increases the detection of biopsy-confirmed CIN 2,3. METHODS: This is a multicenter two-arm randomized trial comparing colposcopy alone with colposcopy plus a pre-commercial ODS system that utilizes fluorescence, white light tissue reflectance, and cervical video imaging. Patients were recruited from 13 colposcopy clinics in a variety of practice settings. 2299 women referred for the evaluation of an abnormal cervical cytology were randomized with stratification by cytology; subsequently 113 women were excluded for a variety of reasons. The main study outcomes were differences in true-positive rates (CIN 2,3 and cancer identified) and false-positive rates between the study arms. RESULTS: The true-positive (TP) rates were 14.4% vs. 11.4% (p=0.035, one-sided) for the combined colposcopy and ODS arm compared to colposcopy-only arm, respectively, in women with either an atypical squamous cell (ASC) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology result. TP rates were similar between the two arms among women referred for the evaluation of HSIL. The 26.5% gain in true-positives observed with the use of ODS and colposcopy among women referred for an ASC or LSIL cytology was achieved with only a fractional increase in number of biopsies obtained per patient (0.30) and a modest increase in false-positive rate (4%). In the combined colposcopy and ODS arm among women with ASC or LSIL, the PPV of biopsies indicated by ODS was 15.0% and the PPV of biopsies indicated by colposcopy was 15.2%. Joint hypothesis testing indicates that ODS and colposcopy provides benefit compared to colposcopy alone among women with ASC or LSIL. CONCLUSIONS: Combining ODS with colposcopy provides a clinically meaningful increase in the detection of CIN 2,3 in women referred for the evaluation of mildly abnormal cytology results.
Authors: Vivide Tuan-Chyan Chang; Peter S Cartwright; Sarah M Bean; Greg M Palmer; Rex C Bentley; Nirmala Ramanujam Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Condon Lau; Jelena Mirkovic; Chung-Chieh Yu; Geoff P O'Donoghue; Luis Galindo; Ramachandra Dasari; Antonio de las Morenas; Michael Feld; Elizabeth Stier Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Scott B Cantor; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial Guillaud; Dennis D Cox; E Neely Atkinson; John L Benedet; Dianne Miller; Thomas Ehlen; Jasenka Matisic; Dirk van Niekerk; Monique Bertrand; Andrea Milbourne; Helen Rhodes; Anais Malpica; Gregg Staerkel; Shahla Nader-Eftekhari; Karen Adler-Storthz; Michael E Scheurer; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; Loyd A West; Anne-Therese Vlastos; Xia Tao; J Robert Beck; Calum Macaulay; Michele Follen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lindsay M Kuroki; Laura James-Nywening; Ningying Wu; Jingxia Liu; Matthew A Powell; Premal H Thaker; L Stewart Massad Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Judith R Mourant; Tamara M Powers; Thérese J Bocklage; Heather M Greene; Maxine H Dorin; Alan G Waxman; Meggan M Zsemlye; Harriet O Smith Journal: Appl Opt Date: 2009-04-01 Impact factor: 1.980
Authors: Sanaz Hariri Tabrizi; S Mahmoud Reza Aghamiri; Farah Farzaneh; Henricus J C M Sterenborg Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 3.161