Changxian Chen1, Zhijun Yang, Zhuang Li, Li Li. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess the accuracy of 6 common cervical screening strategies, including visual inspection with acetic acid, with a magnifying device, or with Lugol iodine (VILI), human papillomavirus testing with Hybrid Capture 2 assay, conventional Papanicolaou smear, and thin liquid-based cytology (LBC), and then to compare data obtained by the aforementioned 6 strategies. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched for all original relevant studies about early detection of cervical cancer. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of the 6 screening strategies covering sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Fifteen articles containing 22 cross-sectional studies were finally identified. The combined estimates of sensitivity for visual inspection with acetic acid, magnified visual inspection with acetic acid, VILI, Hybrid Capture 2 assay, conventional Papanicolaou smear, and LBC were 77%, 64%, 91%, 74%, 59%, and 88%, respectively; the combined values of specificity of these screening strategies were 87%, 86%, 85%, 92%, 94%, and 88%, respectively; the diagnostic odds ratio were 22.43, 10.30, 57.44, 33.26, 22.49, and 51.56, respectively; and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.8918, 0.7737, 0.9365, 0.9486, 0.9079, and 0.9418, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that LBC appeared to be promising in primary cervical cancer screening in resourced regions, and VILI might be a good choice to identify/exclude cervical cancerous and precancerous lesions in resource-constrained regions.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess the accuracy of 6 common cervical screening strategies, including visual inspection with acetic acid, with a magnifying device, or with Lugol iodine (VILI), human papillomavirus testing with Hybrid Capture 2 assay, conventional Papanicolaou smear, and thin liquid-based cytology (LBC), and then to compare data obtained by the aforementioned 6 strategies. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched for all original relevant studies about early detection of cervical cancer. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the accuracy of the 6 screening strategies covering sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Fifteen articles containing 22 cross-sectional studies were finally identified. The combined estimates of sensitivity for visual inspection with acetic acid, magnified visual inspection with acetic acid, VILI, Hybrid Capture 2 assay, conventional Papanicolaou smear, and LBC were 77%, 64%, 91%, 74%, 59%, and 88%, respectively; the combined values of specificity of these screening strategies were 87%, 86%, 85%, 92%, 94%, and 88%, respectively; the diagnostic odds ratio were 22.43, 10.30, 57.44, 33.26, 22.49, and 51.56, respectively; and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.8918, 0.7737, 0.9365, 0.9486, 0.9079, and 0.9418, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that LBC appeared to be promising in primary cervical cancer screening in resourced regions, and VILI might be a good choice to identify/exclude cervical cancerous and precancerous lesions in resource-constrained regions.
Authors: Julia M Lemp; Jan-Walter De Neve; Hermann Bussmann; Simiao Chen; Jennifer Manne-Goehler; Michaela Theilmann; Maja-Emilia Marcus; Cara Ebert; Charlotte Probst; Lindiwe Tsabedze-Sibanyoni; Lela Sturua; Joseph M Kibachio; Sahar Saeedi Moghaddam; Joao S Martins; Dismand Houinato; Corine Houehanou; Mongal S Gurung; Gladwell Gathecha; Farshad Farzadfar; Scott Dryden-Peterson; Justine I Davies; Rifat Atun; Sebastian Vollmer; Till Bärnighausen; Pascal Geldsetzer Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Phetsavanh Chanthavilay; Daniel Reinharz; Mayfong Mayxay; Keokedthong Phongsavan; Donald E Marsden; Lynne Moore; Lisa J White Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.240
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