OBJECTIVES: Visual inspection of the cervix after acetic acid application (VIA) is widely recommended as the method of choice in cervical cancer screening programs in resource-limited settings because of its simplicity and ability to link with immediate treatment. In testing the effectiveness of VIA, human papillomavirus DNA testing, and Pap cytology in a population-based study in a peri-urban area in Andhra Pradesh, India, we found the sensitivity of VIA for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and worse (CIN2+) to be 26.3%, much lower than the 60% to 90% reported in the literature. We therefore investigated the determinants of VIA positivity in our study population. METHODS: We evaluated VIA positivity by demographics and reproductive history, results of clinical examination, and results from the other screening methods. RESULTS: Of the 19 women diagnosed with CIN2+, only 5 were positive by VIA (positive predictive value, 3.1%). In multivariate analysis, VIA positivity (12.74%) was associated with older age, positive Pap smear, visually apparent cervical inflammation, and interobserver variation. Cervical inflammation of unknown cause was present in 21.62% of women. In disease-negative women, cervical inflammation was associated with an increase in VIA positivity from 6.1% to 15.5% (P<0.001). Among the six gynecologists who performed VIA, the positivity rate varied from 4% to 31%. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of VIA is subjective and its performance cannot be readily evaluated against objective standards. IMPACT: VIA is not a robust screening test and we caution against its use as the primary screening test in resource-limited regions. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR
OBJECTIVES: Visual inspection of the cervix after acetic acid application (VIA) is widely recommended as the method of choice in cervical cancer screening programs in resource-limited settings because of its simplicity and ability to link with immediate treatment. In testing the effectiveness of VIA, human papillomavirus DNA testing, and Pap cytology in a population-based study in a peri-urban area in Andhra Pradesh, India, we found the sensitivity of VIA for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and worse (CIN2+) to be 26.3%, much lower than the 60% to 90% reported in the literature. We therefore investigated the determinants of VIA positivity in our study population. METHODS: We evaluated VIA positivity by demographics and reproductive history, results of clinical examination, and results from the other screening methods. RESULTS: Of the 19 women diagnosed with CIN2+, only 5 were positive by VIA (positive predictive value, 3.1%). In multivariate analysis, VIA positivity (12.74%) was associated with older age, positive Pap smear, visually apparent cervical inflammation, and interobserver variation. Cervical inflammation of unknown cause was present in 21.62% of women. In disease-negative women, cervical inflammation was associated with an increase in VIA positivity from 6.1% to 15.5% (P<0.001). Among the six gynecologists who performed VIA, the positivity rate varied from 4% to 31%. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of VIA is subjective and its performance cannot be readily evaluated against objective standards. IMPACT: VIA is not a robust screening test and we caution against its use as the primary screening test in resource-limited regions. Copyright (c) 2010 AACR
Authors: L O Sarian; S F Derchain; P Naud; C Roteli-Martins; A Longatto-Filho; S Tatti; M Branca; M Erzen; L Serpa-Hammes; J Matos; R Gontijo; J F Bragança; T P Lima; M Y S Maeda; A Lörincz; G B Dores; S Costa; S Syrjänen; K Syrjänen Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: A Gradilone; R Vercillo; M Napolitano; G Cardinali; P Gazzaniga; I Silvestri; O Gandini; S Tomao; A M Aglianò Journal: J Med Virol Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Mercy Nyamewaa Asiedu; Anish Simhal; Usamah Chaudhary; Jenna L Mueller; Christopher T Lam; John W Schmitt; Gino Venegas; Guillermo Sapiro; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 4.538
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
Authors: Vijaya Srinivas; Holly M Nishimura; Poornima Jayakrishna; Karl Krupp; Purnima Madhivanan; SubbaRao V Madhunapantula Journal: Indian J Cancer Date: 2021 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.224