OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of the Papanicolaou smear in screening and diagnostic settings. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed Papanicolaou smear results of 1,850 women recruited into a clinical trial to evaluate an emerging technology for the detection of cervical cancer. Screening and diagnosis groups were based on the history of previous Papanicolaou smear results. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: In the screening group, by defining disease as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2,3/cancer or worse and using high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) as the test cutpoint, the AUC was 0.689, and the LR+ and LR- were 39.25 and 0.67, respectively. In the diagnosis group, the AUC was 0.764, and the LR+ and LR- were 3.79 and 0.56, respectively. By defining disease as human papillomavirus/CIN 1 or worse and HSIL as the test cutpoint, the AUC was 0.586, and the LR+ and LR- were 17.01 and 0.92 in the screening group; in the diagnosis group, the AUC was 0.686, and the LR+ and LR- were 2.77 and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a screening setting, a Papanicolaou smear result of HSIL or worse is 39 times more likely in a patient with CIN 2,3/cancer than in a patient without it. This compares to 4 times more likely in the diagnostic setting. The magnitude of the positive likelihood ratio observed in the screening group indicated that abnormal Papanicolaou smear results obtained in the screening setting should have more impact on clinical decision making than those from results obtained in the diagnostic setting.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the performance of the Papanicolaou smear in screening and diagnostic settings. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed Papanicolaou smear results of 1,850 women recruited into a clinical trial to evaluate an emerging technology for the detection of cervical cancer. Screening and diagnosis groups were based on the history of previous Papanicolaou smear results. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: In the screening group, by defining disease as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2,3/cancer or worse and using high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) as the test cutpoint, the AUC was 0.689, and the LR+ and LR- were 39.25 and 0.67, respectively. In the diagnosis group, the AUC was 0.764, and the LR+ and LR- were 3.79 and 0.56, respectively. By defining disease as human papillomavirus/CIN 1 or worse and HSIL as the test cutpoint, the AUC was 0.586, and the LR+ and LR- were 17.01 and 0.92 in the screening group; in the diagnosis group, the AUC was 0.686, and the LR+ and LR- were 2.77 and 0.75, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a screening setting, a Papanicolaou smear result of HSIL or worse is 39 times more likely in a patient with CIN 2,3/cancer than in a patient without it. This compares to 4 times more likely in the diagnostic setting. The magnitude of the positive likelihood ratio observed in the screening group indicated that abnormal Papanicolaou smear results obtained in the screening setting should have more impact on clinical decision making than those from results obtained in the diagnostic setting.
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: 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: Robert B Penfold; David S Carrell; David J Cronkite; Chester Pabiniak; Tammy Dodd; Ashley Mh Glass; Eric Johnson; Ella Thompson; H Michael Arrighi; Paul E Stang Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Wedad Al-Madani; Anwar E Ahmed; Haitham Arabi; Sumaiah Al Khodairy; Nashmia Al Mutairi; Abdul Rahman Jazieh Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 1.484