Jenna L Mueller1, Elizabeth Asma, Christopher T Lam, Marlee S Krieger, Jennifer E Gallagher, Alaattin Erkanli, Roopa Hariprasad, J S Malliga, Lisa C Muasher, Bariki Mchome, Olola Oneko, Peyton Taylor, Gino Venegas, Anthony Wanyoro, Ravi Mehrotra, John W Schmitt, Nimmi Ramanujam. 1. 1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC; 2Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC; 3Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; 4Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical School, Durham, NC; 5Institute of Cytology and Preventative Oncology (ICMR), New Delhi, India; 6Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India; 7Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; 8Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania; 9Liga Contra el Cáncer, Pueblo Libre, Lima, Peru; and 10Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Barriers to cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings include lack of accessible, high-quality services, high cost, and the need for multiple visits. To address these challenges, we developed a low-cost, intravaginal, optical cervical imaging device, the point-of-care tampon (POCkeT) colposcope and evaluated whether its performance is comparable with a standard-of-care colposcope. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 2 protocols, which included 44 and 18 patients. For the first protocol, white-light cervical images were collected in vivo, blinded by device, and sent electronically to 8 physicians from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. For the second protocol, green-light images were also collected and sent electronically to the highest performing physician from the first protocol who has experience in both a high- and low-income country. For each image, physicians completed a survey assessing cervix characteristics and severity of precancerous lesions. Corresponding pathology was obtained for all image pairs. RESULTS: For the first protocol, average percent agreement between devices was 70% across all physicians. The POCkeT and standard-of-care colposcope images had 37% and 51% agreement with pathology for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), respectively. Investigation of HSIL POCkeT images revealed decreased visibility of vascularization and lack of contrast in lesion margins. After changes were made for the second protocol, the 2 devices achieved similar agreement to pathology for HSIL lesions (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the exploratory study, physician interpretation of cervix images acquired using a portable, low-cost POCkeT colposcope was comparable to a standard-of-care colposcope.
OBJECTIVE: Barriers to cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings include lack of accessible, high-quality services, high cost, and the need for multiple visits. To address these challenges, we developed a low-cost, intravaginal, optical cervical imaging device, the point-of-care tampon (POCkeT) colposcope and evaluated whether its performance is comparable with a standard-of-care colposcope. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 2 protocols, which included 44 and 18 patients. For the first protocol, white-light cervical images were collected in vivo, blinded by device, and sent electronically to 8 physicians from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. For the second protocol, green-light images were also collected and sent electronically to the highest performing physician from the first protocol who has experience in both a high- and low-income country. For each image, physicians completed a survey assessing cervix characteristics and severity of precancerous lesions. Corresponding pathology was obtained for all image pairs. RESULTS: For the first protocol, average percent agreement between devices was 70% across all physicians. The POCkeT and standard-of-care colposcope images had 37% and 51% agreement with pathology for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), respectively. Investigation of HSIL POCkeT images revealed decreased visibility of vascularization and lack of contrast in lesion margins. After changes were made for the second protocol, the 2 devices achieved similar agreement to pathology for HSIL lesions (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the exploratory study, physician interpretation of cervix images acquired using a portable, low-cost POCkeT colposcope was comparable to a standard-of-care colposcope.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Proma Paul; Jennifer L Winkler; Rosario M Bartolini; Mary E Penny; Trinh Thu Huong; Le Thi Nga; Edward Kumakech; Emmanuel Mugisha; Jose Jeronimo Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013
Authors: L Stewart Massad; Mark H Einstein; Warner K Huh; Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Mercy Nyamewaa Asiedu; Anish Simhal; Usamah Chaudhary; Jenna L Mueller; Christopher T Lam; John W Schmitt; Gino Venegas; Guillermo Sapiro; Nimmi Ramanujam Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Emma McKim Mitchell; Aubrey L Doede; Michelet McLean Estrada; Orlando Benito Granera; Francisco Maldonado; Brian Dunn; Shernai Banks; Imani Marks-Symeonides; Danielle Morrone; Charlotte Pitt; Rebecca A Dillingham Journal: Telemed Rep Date: 2021-11-05
Authors: Brian T Crouch; Jennifer Gallagher; Roujia Wang; Joy Duer; Allison Hall; Mary Scott Soo; Philip Hughes; Timothy Haystead; Nirmala Ramanujam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andrea Thoumi; Sarah J Bond; Mary Elizabeth Dotson; Marlee Krieger; Patricia J Garcia; Nirmala Ramanujam Journal: Ann Glob Health Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.462
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
Authors: Michelle B Shin; Gui Liu; Nelly Mugo; Patricia J Garcia; Darcy W Rao; Cara J Bayer; Linda O Eckert; Leeya F Pinder; Judith N Wasserheit; Ruanne V Barnabas Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-07-01