Juan Li1, Wei Wang2, Ping Yang3, Jing Chen1, Qianling Dai1, Ping Hua4, Dandan Liu1. 1. Department of Diagnosis and Treatment for Vulval and Cervical Diseases, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Diagnosis and Treatment for Vulval and Cervical Diseases, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, Sichuan, China. 592213263@qq.com. 3. Chengdu Branch of the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, Big Data Research Institute Co., Ltd. Chengdu, Sichuan, 610000, China. 4. Department of Pathology, Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, Sichuan, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the agreement between colposcopic impression and histopathological diagnosis of cervical biopsy. METHODS: The medical records of patients underwent a colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy at Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital between January 2017 and January 2019 were collected, including age, menopausal status, cervical cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) test results, type of transformation zone, colposcopic diagnosis and histopathological outcomes of cervical biopsy. Colposcopy was carried out using 2011 colposcopic terminology of International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC). Related variables were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 495 patients were collected in this study. The perfect agreement between colposcopic impression and histopathological diagnosis was 46.9%, and the strength of agreement with kappa value was 0.283 (P < 0.001), and the agreement within 1 grade was 93.5%. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and false-negative rate of detecting HSIL or more (HSIL +) were 93.1%, 57.8%, 80.9%, 93.9%, 6.1% and 45.3%, respectively. Colposcopic diagnosis more often underestimated (43.2%) [especially in HSIL (59.3%) and carcinoma (70.7%) patients] than overestimated (9.9%) in cervical lesions. The results of cytology, HPV status, patients' age and different experiences of practitioners were the factors for under-diagnosis of HSIL + by colposcopy. CONCLUSION: Colposcopy is an excellent tool to estimate cervical high-grade lesion but is imprecise. Many factors can bias the diagnosis of colposcopy, especially the known results of cervical cytology and HPV. Precise diagnosis of cervical lesion should rely on the colposcopy-directed biopsy.
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the agreement between colposcopic impression and histopathological diagnosis of cervical biopsy. METHODS: The medical records of patients underwent a colposcopy-guided cervical biopsy at Chengdu Women's and Children's Central Hospital between January 2017 and January 2019 were collected, including age, menopausal status, cervical cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) test results, type of transformation zone, colposcopic diagnosis and histopathological outcomes of cervical biopsy. Colposcopy was carried out using 2011 colposcopic terminology of International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC). Related variables were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 495 patients were collected in this study. The perfect agreement between colposcopic impression and histopathological diagnosis was 46.9%, and the strength of agreement with kappa value was 0.283 (P < 0.001), and the agreement within 1 grade was 93.5%. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and false-negative rate of detecting HSIL or more (HSIL +) were 93.1%, 57.8%, 80.9%, 93.9%, 6.1% and 45.3%, respectively. Colposcopic diagnosis more often underestimated (43.2%) [especially in HSIL (59.3%) and carcinoma (70.7%) patients] than overestimated (9.9%) in cervical lesions. The results of cytology, HPV status, patients' age and different experiences of practitioners were the factors for under-diagnosis of HSIL + by colposcopy. CONCLUSION: Colposcopy is an excellent tool to estimate cervical high-grade lesion but is imprecise. Many factors can bias the diagnosis of colposcopy, especially the known results of cervical cytology and HPV. Precise diagnosis of cervical lesion should rely on the colposcopy-directed biopsy.
Authors: Erik Kudela; Zuzana Laucekova; Marcela Nachajova; Jozef Visnovsky; Tibor Bielik; Stefan Krivus; Kamil Biringer; Tomas Balharek; Pavol Zubor Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Res Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 1.730
Authors: Eileen F Dunne; Elizabeth R Unger; Maya Sternberg; Geraldine McQuillan; David C Swan; Sonya S Patel; Lauri E Markowitz Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Guglielmo Ronco; Paolo Giorgi-Rossi; Francesca Carozzi; Massimo Confortini; Paolo Dalla Palma; Annarosa Del Mistro; Bruno Ghiringhello; Salvatore Girlando; Anna Gillio-Tos; Laura De Marco; Carlo Naldoni; Paola Pierotti; Raffaella Rizzolo; Patrizia Schincaglia; Manuel Zorzi; Marco Zappa; Nereo Segnan; Jack Cuzick Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-01-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pontus Naucler; Walter Ryd; Sven Törnberg; Anders Strand; Göran Wadell; Kristina Elfgren; Thomas Rådberg; Björn Strander; Bo Johansson; Ola Forslund; Bengt-Göran Hansson; Eva Rylander; Joakim Dillner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Corina Ziegert; Nicolas Wentzensen; Svetlana Vinokurova; Fjodor Kisseljov; Jens Einenkel; Michael Hoeckel; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz Journal: Oncogene Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702