OBJECTIVE: To estimate the accuracy of colposcopy to identify cervical precancer in screening and diagnostic settings. METHODS: As part of a larger clinical trial to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of optical spectroscopy, we recruited 1,850 patients into a diagnostic or a screening group depending on their history of abnormal findings on Papanicolaou tests. Colposcopic examinations were performed and biopsies specimens obtained from abnormal and normal colposcopic sites for all patients. The criterion standard of test accuracy was the histologic report of biopsies. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: The prevalence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or cancer was 29.0% for the diagnostic group and 2.2% for the screening group. Using a disease threshold of HSIL, colposcopy had a sensitivity of 0.983 and a specificity of 0.451 in the diagnostic group when the test threshold was low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), and a sensitivity of 0.714 and a specificity of 0.813 when the test threshold was HSIL. Using the same HSIL disease threshold, in the screening group, colposcopy had a sensitivity of 0.286 and a specificity of 0.877 when the test threshold was LSIL, and a sensitivity of 0.191 and a specificity of 0.961 when the threshold was HSIL. The colposcopy area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.821 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.85) in the diagnostic setting compared with 0.587 (95% confidence interval 0.56-0.62) in the screening setting. Changing the disease threshold to LSIL demonstrated similar patterns in the tradeoff of sensitivity and specificity and measure of accuracy. CONCLUSION: Colposcopy performs well in the diagnostic setting and poorly in the screening setting. Colposcopy should not be used to screen for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the accuracy of colposcopy to identify cervical precancer in screening and diagnostic settings. METHODS: As part of a larger clinical trial to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of optical spectroscopy, we recruited 1,850 patients into a diagnostic or a screening group depending on their history of abnormal findings on Papanicolaou tests. Colposcopic examinations were performed and biopsies specimens obtained from abnormal and normal colposcopic sites for all patients. The criterion standard of test accuracy was the histologic report of biopsies. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: The prevalence of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or cancer was 29.0% for the diagnostic group and 2.2% for the screening group. Using a disease threshold of HSIL, colposcopy had a sensitivity of 0.983 and a specificity of 0.451 in the diagnostic group when the test threshold was low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), and a sensitivity of 0.714 and a specificity of 0.813 when the test threshold was HSIL. Using the same HSIL disease threshold, in the screening group, colposcopy had a sensitivity of 0.286 and a specificity of 0.877 when the test threshold was LSIL, and a sensitivity of 0.191 and a specificity of 0.961 when the threshold was HSIL. The colposcopy area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.821 (95% confidence interval 0.79-0.85) in the diagnostic setting compared with 0.587 (95% confidence interval 0.56-0.62) in the screening setting. Changing the disease threshold to LSIL demonstrated similar patterns in the tradeoff of sensitivity and specificity and measure of accuracy. CONCLUSION: Colposcopy performs well in the diagnostic setting and poorly in the screening setting. Colposcopy should not be used to screen for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: John Gawedzinski; Kathleen M Schmeler; Andrea Milbourne; Preetha Ramalingam; Parnian A Moghaddam; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Tomasz S Tkaczyk Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Timon P H Buys; Scott B Cantor; Martial Guillaud; Karen Adler-Storthz; Dennis D Cox; Clement Okolo; Oyedunni Arulogon; Oladimeji Oladepo; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; José-Miguel Yamal; J Robert Beck; Michael E Scheurer; Dirk van Niekerk; Anais Malpica; Jasenka Matisic; Gregg Staerkel; Edward Neely Atkinson; Luc Bidaut; Pierre Lane; J Lou Benedet; Dianne Miller; Tom Ehlen; Roderick Price; Isaac F Adewole; Calum MacAulay; Michele Follen Journal: Gend Med Date: 2011-09-22
Authors: Van T Nghiem; Kalatu R Davies; J Robert Beck; Michele Follen; Scott B Cantor Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jose-Miguel Yamal; Getie A Zewdie; Dennis D Cox; E Neely Atkinson; Scott B Cantor; Calum MacAulay; Kalatu Davies; Isaac Adewole; Timon P H Buys; Michele Follen Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Benjamin K S Chan; Joy Melnikow; Christina A Slee; Rose Arellanes; George F Sawaya Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 8.661