OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the agreement and compare diagnostic accuracy of colposcopic impressions from live colposcopy versus evaluation of static digital images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Live impressions and corresponding static images obtained during colposcopy of 690 women were independently compared. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for colposcopic impressions from both methods, varying hypothetical thresholds for colposcopically directed cervical biopsies (acetowhitening or worse, low grade or worse, high grade or worse). Stratified analyses investigated the impact of referral cytology, human papillomavirus 16 infection, and age on colposcopic impression. RESULTS: Overall agreement between live and static colposcopic visualization was 43.0% (κ = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.14-0.26) over normal, acetowhitening, low-grade, and high-grade impressions. Classification of acetowhitening or worse impressions showed the highest agreement (92.2%; κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57); both methods achieved more than 95% sensitivity for CIN 2+. Agreement between live and static colposcopic visualization was 69.3% for rating low-grade or worse impressions (κ = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.14-0.33) and 71% when rating high-grade impressions (κ = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.24-0.42). Live colposcopic impressions were more likely to be rated low grade or worse (p < .01; odds ratio = 3.5; 95% CI = 2.4-5.0), yielding higher sensitivity for CIN 2+ at this threshold than static image assessment (95.4% vs 79.8%, p < .01). Overall, colposcopic impressions were more likely rated high grade on live assessment among women referred with high-grade cytology (odds ratio = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.8-6.4), significantly improving the sensitivity for CIN 2+ (66.3% vs 48.5%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Colposcopic impressions of acetowhitening or worse are highly sensitive for identifying cervical precancers and reproducible on static image-based pattern recognition.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the agreement and compare diagnostic accuracy of colposcopic impressions from live colposcopy versus evaluation of static digital images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Live impressions and corresponding static images obtained during colposcopy of 690 women were independently compared. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for colposcopic impressions from both methods, varying hypothetical thresholds for colposcopically directed cervical biopsies (acetowhitening or worse, low grade or worse, high grade or worse). Stratified analyses investigated the impact of referral cytology, human papillomavirus 16infection, and age on colposcopic impression. RESULTS: Overall agreement between live and static colposcopic visualization was 43.0% (κ = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.14-0.26) over normal, acetowhitening, low-grade, and high-grade impressions. Classification of acetowhitening or worse impressions showed the highest agreement (92.2%; κ = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.21-0.57); both methods achieved more than 95% sensitivity for CIN 2+. Agreement between live and static colposcopic visualization was 69.3% for rating low-grade or worse impressions (κ = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.14-0.33) and 71% when rating high-grade impressions (κ = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.24-0.42). Live colposcopic impressions were more likely to be rated low grade or worse (p < .01; odds ratio = 3.5; 95% CI = 2.4-5.0), yielding higher sensitivity for CIN 2+ at this threshold than static image assessment (95.4% vs 79.8%, p < .01). Overall, colposcopic impressions were more likely rated high grade on live assessment among women referred with high-grade cytology (odds ratio = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.8-6.4), significantly improving the sensitivity for CIN 2+ (66.3% vs 48.5%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Colposcopic impressions of acetowhitening or worse are highly sensitive for identifying cervical precancers and reproducible on static image-based pattern recognition.
Authors: Julia C Gage; Vivien W Hanson; Kim Abbey; Susan Dippery; Susi Gardner; Janet Kubota; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Jose Jeronimo Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; S Terence Dunn; Rosemary E Zuna; Joan Walker; Richard A Allen; Roy Zhang; Mark E Sherman; Sholom Wacholder; Jose Jeronimo; Michael A Gold; Sophia S Wang Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sophia S Wang; Rosemary E Zuna; Nicolas Wentzensen; S Terence Dunn; Mark E Sherman; Michael A Gold; Mark Schiffman; Sholom Wacholder; Richard A Allen; Ingrid Block; Kim Downing; Jose Jeronimo; J Daniel Carreon; Mahboobeh Safaeian; David Brown; Joan L Walker Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Thomas C Wright; L Stewart Massad; Charles J Dunton; Mark Spitzer; Edward J Wilkinson; Diane Solomon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Caroline Gallay; Anne Girardet; Manuela Viviano; Rosa Catarino; Anne-Caroline Benski; Phuong Lien Tran; Christophe Ecabert; Jean-Philippe Thiran; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat Journal: Int J Womens Health Date: 2017-06-22
Authors: Andrew Goldstein; Lena Sophia Goldstein; Roberta Lipson; Sarah Bedell; Jue Wang; Sarah A Stamper; Gal Brenner; Gail R Goldstein; Karen Davis O'Keefe; S Casey O'Keefe; McKenna O'Keefe; Tierney O'Keefe; Amelia R Goldstein; Anna Zhao Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 2.692