OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal strategy for cervical cancer screening in women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection by comparing two strategies: visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) and VIA followed immediately by visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI) in women with a positive VIA result. METHODS: Data from a cervical cancer screening programme embedded in two HIV clinic sites in western Kenya were evaluated. Women at a central site underwent VIA, while women at a peripheral site underwent VIA/VILI. All women positive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) on VIA and/or VILI had a confirmatory colposcopy, with a biopsy if necessary. Overall test positivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and the CIN 2+ detection rate were calculated for the two screening methods, with biopsy being the gold standard. FINDINGS: Between October 2007 and October 2010, 2338 women were screened with VIA and 1124 with VIA/VILI. In the VIA group, 26.4% of the women tested positive for CIN 2+; in the VIA/VILI group, 21.7% tested positive (P < 0.01). Histologically confirmed CIN 2+ was detected in 8.9% and 7.8% (P = 0.27) of women in the VIA and VIA/VILI groups, respectively. The PPV of VIA for biopsy-confirmed CIN 2+ in a single round of screening was 35.2%, compared with 38.2% for VIA/VILI (P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The absence of any differences between VIA and VIA/VILI in detection rates or PPV for CIN 2+ suggests that VIA, an easy testing procedure, can be used alone as a cervical cancer screening strategy in low-income settings.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal strategy for cervical cancer screening in women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection by comparing two strategies: visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (VIA) and VIA followed immediately by visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI) in women with a positive VIA result. METHODS: Data from a cervical cancer screening programme embedded in two HIV clinic sites in western Kenya were evaluated. Women at a central site underwent VIA, while women at a peripheral site underwent VIA/VILI. All women positive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) on VIA and/or VILI had a confirmatory colposcopy, with a biopsy if necessary. Overall test positivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and the CIN 2+ detection rate were calculated for the two screening methods, with biopsy being the gold standard. FINDINGS: Between October 2007 and October 2010, 2338 women were screened with VIA and 1124 with VIA/VILI. In the VIA group, 26.4% of the women tested positive for CIN 2+; in the VIA/VILI group, 21.7% tested positive (P < 0.01). Histologically confirmed CIN 2+ was detected in 8.9% and 7.8% (P = 0.27) of women in the VIA and VIA/VILI groups, respectively. The PPV of VIA for biopsy-confirmed CIN 2+ in a single round of screening was 35.2%, compared with 38.2% for VIA/VILI (P = 0.41). CONCLUSION: The absence of any differences between VIA and VIA/VILI in detection rates or PPV for CIN 2+ suggests that VIA, an easy testing procedure, can be used alone as a cervical cancer screening strategy in low-income settings.
Authors: Joke A M Dols; Gregor Reid; Joelle M Brown; Hugo Tempelman; Tj Romke Bontekoe; Wim G V Quint; Mathilde E Boon Journal: ISRN Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-06-28
Authors: Jayne Lewis Kulzer; Jeremy A Penner; Reson Marima; Patrick Oyaro; Arbogast O Oyanga; Starley B Shade; Cinthia C Blat; Lennah Nyabiage; Christina W Mwachari; Hellen C Muttai; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Craig R Cohen Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Jennifer R Moodley; Margaret Hoffman; Henri Carrara; Bruce R Allan; Diane D Cooper; Lynn Rosenberg; Lynette E Denny; Samuel Shapiro; Anna-Lise Williamson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2006-05-23 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Annie J Sasco; Antoine Jaquet; Emilie Boidin; Didier K Ekouevi; Fabian Thouillot; Thomas Lemabec; Marie-Anna Forstin; Philippe Renaudier; Paul N'dom; Denis Malvy; François Dabis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maarit K Leinonen; Pekka Nieminen; Stefan Lönnberg; Nea Malila; Matti Hakama; Arun Pokhrel; Pekka Laurila; Jussi Tarkkanen; Ahti Anttila Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-11-29
Authors: Cynthia Firnhaber; Nomtha Mayisela; Lu Mao; Sophie Williams; Avril Swarts; Mark Faesen; Simon Levin; Pam Michelow; Tanvier Omar; Michael G Hudgens; Anna-Lise Williamson; Bruce Allan; David A Lewis; Jennifer S Smith Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Manuela Viviano; Pierre DeBeaudrap; Pierre-Marie Tebeu; Jovanny T Fouogue; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2017-02-02
Authors: J L Mueller; C T Lam; D Dahl; M N Asiedu; M S Krieger; Y Bellido-Fuentes; M Kellish; J Peters; A Erkanli; E J Ortiz; L C Muasher; P T Taylor; J W Schmitt; G Venegas; N Ramanujam Journal: BJOG Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 6.531