OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the potential benefits of polarized light colposcopy compared with standard colposcopy examinations in the evaluation of women with abnormal cervical cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polarized and standard colposcopy examinations were performed on 330 subjects. Respective images and biopsy annotations were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity; differences in the severity of cervical neoplasia; agreement of colposcopy impression, biopsy intent, and biopsy site; and differences in the number of biopsies were determined using the ROC, Bowker's test of symmetry, kappa statistic, and paired t test, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for a lesion being seen with nonpolarized light and polarized light colposcopy were 96.8% and 64.5%, and 96.8% and 64.9%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of the lesion being seen between nonpolarized (80.7) and polarized (80.9) colposcopy. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of intent to biopsy between nonpolarized (80.2) and polarized colposcopy (78.8). The agreement of cervical histopathology and colposcopy impression for nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy were 0.986 and 0.952, respectively. There was no significant difference between nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy in the mean number of lesions seen or number of sites intended to biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Polarized light colposcopy was not useful as an adjunct to conventional colposcopy in this study. Further research needs to be performed to determine the overall utility of polarized light colposcopy in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the potential benefits of polarized light colposcopy compared with standard colposcopy examinations in the evaluation of women with abnormal cervical cytology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polarized and standard colposcopy examinations were performed on 330 subjects. Respective images and biopsy annotations were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity; differences in the severity of cervical neoplasia; agreement of colposcopy impression, biopsy intent, and biopsy site; and differences in the number of biopsies were determined using the ROC, Bowker's test of symmetry, kappa statistic, and paired t test, respectively. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for a lesion being seen with nonpolarized light and polarized light colposcopy were 96.8% and 64.5%, and 96.8% and 64.9%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of the lesion being seen between nonpolarized (80.7) and polarized (80.9) colposcopy. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of intent to biopsy between nonpolarized (80.2) and polarized colposcopy (78.8). The agreement of cervical histopathology and colposcopy impression for nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy were 0.986 and 0.952, respectively. There was no significant difference between nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy in the mean number of lesions seen or number of sites intended to biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Polarized light colposcopy was not useful as an adjunct to conventional colposcopy in this study. Further research needs to be performed to determine the overall utility of polarized light colposcopy in clinical practice.
Authors: Luciano S Hammes; Paulo Naud; Eduardo P Passos; Jean Matos; Karla Brouwers; Waldemar Rivoire; Kari J Syrjänen Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Cristiane Benvenuto-Andrade; Stephen W Dusza; Anna Liza C Agero; Alon Scope; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Allan C Halpern; Ashfaq A Marghoob Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2007-03
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Rosemary E Zuna; Mark E Sherman; Michael A Gold; Mark Schiffman; S Terence Dunn; Jose Jeronimo; Roy Zhang; Joan Walker; Sophia S Wang Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2009-09-20 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Scott B Cantor; Marylou Cárdenas-Turanzas; Dennis D Cox; E Neely Atkinson; Graciela M Nogueras-Gonzalez; J Robert Beck; Michele Follen; J L Benedet Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 7.661