OBJECTIVE: To study colposcopic performance in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cervical cancer (CIN2+ and CIN3+) using colposcopic characteristics and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotyping. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicentre study. SETTING: Two colposcopy clinics in The Netherlands and Spain. POPULATION: Six hundred and ten women aged 17 years and older referred for colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. METHODS: A cervical smear was obtained. Colposcopists identified the worst lesion, graded their impression and scored the colposcopic characteristics of the lesions. Up to four biopsies were collected, including one biopsy from visually normal tissue. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CIN2+ and CIN3+, positive for HPV16 or other high-risk HPV types (non-16 hrHPV-positive). RESULTS: The mean age in HPV16-positive CIN2+ women was 35.1 years compared with 39.1 years in women with other hrHPV types (P = 0.002). Sensitivity for colposcopy to detect CIN2+ was 87.9% (95%CI 83.2-91.5), using colposcopic cut-off of 'any abnormality'. The remaining CIN2+ were found by a biopsy from visually normal tissue or endocervical curettage (ECC). Detection of CIN2+ by lesion-targeted biopsies was not different between HPV16-positive women [119/135; 88.1% (95%CI 81.2-92.9)] and non-16 hrHPV-positive women [100/115; 87.0% (95%CI 79.1-92.3); P = 0.776]. In multivariate analysis, 'acetowhitening' [odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95%CI 1.56-3.17], 'time of appearance' (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.21-3.15) and 'lesion >25% of visible cervix' (OR 2.25, 95%CI 1.44-3.51) were associated with CIN2+. CONCLUSIONS: In this population following European screening practice, HPV16-related CIN2+ lesions were detected at younger age and showed similar colposcopic impression as non-16 hrHPV high-grade lesions. There was no relationship between any of the colposcopic characteristics and HPV16 status.
OBJECTIVE: To study colposcopic performance in diagnosing high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cervical cancer (CIN2+ and CIN3+) using colposcopic characteristics and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotyping. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicentre study. SETTING: Two colposcopy clinics in The Netherlands and Spain. POPULATION: Six hundred and ten women aged 17 years and older referred for colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. METHODS: A cervical smear was obtained. Colposcopists identified the worst lesion, graded their impression and scored the colposcopic characteristics of the lesions. Up to four biopsies were collected, including one biopsy from visually normal tissue. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CIN2+ and CIN3+, positive for HPV16 or other high-risk HPV types (non-16 hrHPV-positive). RESULTS: The mean age in HPV16-positive CIN2+ women was 35.1 years compared with 39.1 years in women with other hrHPV types (P = 0.002). Sensitivity for colposcopy to detect CIN2+ was 87.9% (95%CI 83.2-91.5), using colposcopic cut-off of 'any abnormality'. The remaining CIN2+ were found by a biopsy from visually normal tissue or endocervical curettage (ECC). Detection of CIN2+ by lesion-targeted biopsies was not different between HPV16-positive women [119/135; 88.1% (95%CI 81.2-92.9)] and non-16 hrHPV-positive women [100/115; 87.0% (95%CI 79.1-92.3); P = 0.776]. In multivariate analysis, 'acetowhitening' [odds ratio (OR) 1.91, 95%CI 1.56-3.17], 'time of appearance' (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.21-3.15) and 'lesion >25% of visible cervix' (OR 2.25, 95%CI 1.44-3.51) were associated with CIN2+. CONCLUSIONS: In this population following European screening practice, HPV16-related CIN2+ lesions were detected at younger age and showed similar colposcopic impression as non-16 hrHPV high-grade lesions. There was no relationship between any of the colposcopic characteristics and HPV16 status.
Authors: Romy van Baars; Heather Griffin; Zhonglin Wu; Yasmina Jay Soneji; Miekel van de Sandt; Rupali Arora; Jacolien van der Marel; Bram Ter Harmsel; Robert Jach; Krzysztof Okon; Hubert Huras; David Jenkins; Wim Quint; John Doorbar Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Heather Griffin; Yasmina Soneji; Romy Van Baars; Rupali Arora; David Jenkins; Miekel van de Sandt; Zhonglin Wu; Wim Quint; Robert Jach; Krzysztof Okon; Hubert Huras; Albert Singer; John Doorbar Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Aarathi Cholkeri-Singh; Philip T Lavin; Christopher G Olson; Emmanouil Papagiannakis; Lori Weinberg Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Sara A DeNardis; Philip T Lavin; Jeff Livingston; William R Salter; Nanette James-Patrick; Emmanouil Papagiannakis; Christopher G Olson; Lori Weinberg Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2017-09-28
Authors: Philip E Castle; John E Varallo; Margaret Mary Bertram; Bakgaki Ratshaa; Moses Kitheka; Kereng Rammipi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annemiek Leeman; David Jenkins; Marta Del Pino; Jaume Ordi; Aureli Torné; John Doorbar; Chris J L M Meijer; Folkert J van Kemenade; Wim G V Quint Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.452