OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of visual inspection provided by nurses through combining acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) in a low-resource region of Colombia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with 4957 women was conducted to evaluate visual inspection techniques as the basis for see-and-treat approaches in cervical cancer control. All women underwent conventional cytology, VIA performed by nurses, and a combination of VIA and VILI. All women underwent colposcopy and biopsies were obtained for any positive test. RESULTS: A total of 762 women underwent biopsy, 4945 women were included in the analysis of conventional cytology, and 4957 were included in the analysis of VIA and VIA-VILI. Positivity rates were 1.3% and 4.3% for HSIL and LSIL cytology, 7.4% for VIA, and 10.1% for VIA-VILI. Sensitivity for cytology was 52.9% and 36.8% for LSIL and HSIL thresholds, 53.6% for VIA, and 68.1% for VIA-VILI. The corresponding specificity was 95.0%, 99.2%, 93.2%, and 90.8% respectively. The parallel combination of VIA-VILI and cytology LSIL-threshold revealed the best performance as a screening strategy. CONCLUSION: The use of VIA-VILI simulating colposcopic procedures and provided by nurses represents a good alternative for implementing see-and-treat programs in Latin America. Program constraints should be taken into account. Copyright 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of visual inspection provided by nurses through combining acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) in a low-resource region of Colombia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with 4957 women was conducted to evaluate visual inspection techniques as the basis for see-and-treat approaches in cervical cancer control. All women underwent conventional cytology, VIA performed by nurses, and a combination of VIA and VILI. All women underwent colposcopy and biopsies were obtained for any positive test. RESULTS: A total of 762 women underwent biopsy, 4945 women were included in the analysis of conventional cytology, and 4957 were included in the analysis of VIA and VIA-VILI. Positivity rates were 1.3% and 4.3% for HSIL and LSIL cytology, 7.4% for VIA, and 10.1% for VIA-VILI. Sensitivity for cytology was 52.9% and 36.8% for LSIL and HSIL thresholds, 53.6% for VIA, and 68.1% for VIA-VILI. The corresponding specificity was 95.0%, 99.2%, 93.2%, and 90.8% respectively. The parallel combination of VIA-VILI and cytology LSIL-threshold revealed the best performance as a screening strategy. CONCLUSION: The use of VIA-VILI simulating colposcopic procedures and provided by nurses represents a good alternative for implementing see-and-treat programs in Latin America. Program constraints should be taken into account. Copyright 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Alan G Waxman; Lee E Buenconsejo-Lum; Miriam Cremer; Sarah Feldman; Kevin A Ault; Joanna M Cain; Maria Lina Diaz Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Joël Fokom-Domgue; Christophe Combescure; Victoire Fokom-Defo; Pierre Marie Tebeu; Pierre Vassilakos; André Pascal Kengne; Patrick Petignat Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-07-03
Authors: Maribel Almonte; Catterina Ferreccio; Silvana Luciani; Miguel Gonzales; Jose M Delgado; Carlos Santos; Manuel Alvarez; Jack Cuzick; Peter Sasieni Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Priscyla W Simões; Narjara B Izumi; Ramon S Casagrande; Ramon Venson; Carlos D Veronezi; Gustavo P Moretti; Edroaldo L da Rocha; Cristian Cechinel; Luciane B Ceretta; Eros Comunello; Paulo J Martins; Rogério A Casagrande; Maria L Snoeyer; Sandra A Manenti Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2014-10-31
Authors: Geneva A DeGregorio; Leslie S Bradford; Simon Manga; Pius M Tih; Richard Wamai; Rebecca Ogembo; Zacharie Sando; Yuxin Liu; Constance Schwaiger; Sowmya R Rao; Karen Kalmakis; Lisa Kennedy Sheldon; Kathleen Nulah; Edith Welty; Thomas Welty; Javier Gordon Ogembo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 3.240