S Pimple1, S S Shastri. 1. Department of Preventive Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Visual inspection with 5% Acetic acid (VIA) as a low cost screening method has good sensitivity with the limitation of low specificity and low positive predictive values. The present study therefore evaluates the performance of secondary testing by human papillomavirus (HPV) test and Colposcopy in a single-visit screening approach to increase program effectiveness in limited health-care resources settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional cervical cancer screening trial, 3629 women (30-65 years) were screened by primary screening test VIA. VIA test positive women were subsequently tested for the presence of oncogenic HPV types by hybrid capture II and with colposcopy. The reference investigation histopathology was performed for all primary screen positive women. RESULTS: Data for 3613 evaluable women showed 352 (9.7%) women positive on primary screening by VIA. VIA had a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.99) and specificity of 91% (95% CI: 0.90-0.92) respectively to detect the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ . HPV DNA and colposcopy as secondary tests to triage VIA positive women had a sensitivity of 61% (95% CI: 0.41-0.78), 43% (95% CI: 0.24-0.63) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 99% (95% CI: 0.99-0.99) respectively for detecting CIN2+ lesions. CONCLUSION: Two step screening model combining highly sensitive low cost test like VIA for primary screening followed by more specific HPV DNA test as triage test for primary screen positive can be a cost-effective cervical screening strategy in resource constrained settings.
INTRODUCTION: Visual inspection with 5% Acetic acid (VIA) as a low cost screening method has good sensitivity with the limitation of low specificity and low positive predictive values. The present study therefore evaluates the performance of secondary testing by human papillomavirus (HPV) test and Colposcopy in a single-visit screening approach to increase program effectiveness in limited health-care resources settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional cervical cancer screening trial, 3629 women (30-65 years) were screened by primary screening test VIA. VIA test positive women were subsequently tested for the presence of oncogenic HPV types by hybrid capture II and with colposcopy. The reference investigation histopathology was performed for all primary screen positive women. RESULTS: Data for 3613 evaluable women showed 352 (9.7%) women positive on primary screening by VIA. VIA had a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.99) and specificity of 91% (95% CI: 0.90-0.92) respectively to detect the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ . HPV DNA and colposcopy as secondary tests to triage VIA positive women had a sensitivity of 61% (95% CI: 0.41-0.78), 43% (95% CI: 0.24-0.63) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 99% (95% CI: 0.99-0.99) respectively for detecting CIN2+ lesions. CONCLUSION: Two step screening model combining highly sensitive low cost test like VIA for primary screening followed by more specific HPV DNA test as triage test for primary screen positive can be a cost-effective cervical screening strategy in resource constrained settings.