Chemtai Mungo1, Cirilus Ogollah Osongo2, Jeniffer Ambaka2, Magdalene A Randa2, Benard Samba2, Catherine A Ochieng2, Emily Barker3, Anagha Guliam4, Jackton Omoto5, Craig R Cohen6. 1. Division of Prevention Science, Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. FACES Lumumba Clinic, Kisumu, Kenya. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rush University School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 4. Barnard College, University of Columbia, New York, NY. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maseno University School of Medicine, Kisumu, Kenya. 6. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adjunct cervical cancer screening methods are under evaluation to improve the diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening in low- and middle-income countries. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone-based cervicography among HPV-positive women living with HIV (WLWH) in Western Kenya. METHODS: HPV-positive WLWH of 25-49 years of age enrolled in a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04191967) had digital images of the cervix taken using a smartphone by a nonphysician provider following visual inspection with acetic acid. All participants had colposcopy-directed biopsy before treatment. Cervical images were evaluated by three off-site colposcopists for quality, diagnostic utility, and assigned a presumed diagnosis. We determined the proportion of images rates as low, medium, or high quality, interobserver agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic, and the off-site colposcopist's sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared with histopathology. Acceptability was evaluated using a questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four HPV-positive WLWH underwent cervicography during the study period. Mean age was 37.3 years. Images from the first 94 participants were evaluated by off-site colposcopists, with a majority (70.9%) rated as high quality. Off-site colposcopists had a sensitivity ranging from 21.4% (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.43) to 35.7% (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.46) and a specificity between 85.5% (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.90) to 94.9% (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98) for diagnosis of CIN2+ based compared with histopathology. The majority of women, 99.4%, were comfortable having an image of their cervix taken as part of screening. CONCLUSION: Cervicography by a nonphysician provider as an adjunct to HPV-based screening among WLWH in a low- and middle-income country setting is feasible and acceptable. However, low sensitivity for diagnosis of CIN2+ by off-site expert colposcopists highlights the limitations of cervicography.
PURPOSE: Adjunct cervical cancer screening methods are under evaluation to improve the diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening in low- and middle-income countries. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of smartphone-based cervicography among HPV-positive women living with HIV (WLWH) in Western Kenya. METHODS:HPV-positive WLWH of 25-49 years of age enrolled in a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04191967) had digital images of the cervix taken using a smartphone by a nonphysician provider following visual inspection with acetic acid. All participants had colposcopy-directed biopsy before treatment. Cervical images were evaluated by three off-site colposcopists for quality, diagnostic utility, and assigned a presumed diagnosis. We determined the proportion of images rates as low, medium, or high quality, interobserver agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic, and the off-site colposcopist's sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) compared with histopathology. Acceptability was evaluated using a questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four HPV-positive WLWH underwent cervicography during the study period. Mean age was 37.3 years. Images from the first 94 participants were evaluated by off-site colposcopists, with a majority (70.9%) rated as high quality. Off-site colposcopists had a sensitivity ranging from 21.4% (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.43) to 35.7% (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.46) and a specificity between 85.5% (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.90) to 94.9% (95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98) for diagnosis of CIN2+ based compared with histopathology. The majority of women, 99.4%, were comfortable having an image of their cervix taken as part of screening. CONCLUSION: Cervicography by a nonphysician provider as an adjunct to HPV-based screening among WLWH in a low- and middle-income country setting is feasible and acceptable. However, low sensitivity for diagnosis of CIN2+ by off-site expert colposcopists highlights the limitations of cervicography.
Authors: Jana Sami; Sophie Lemoupa Makajio; Emilien Jeannot; Bruno Kenfack; Roser Viñals; Pierre Vassilakos; Patrick Petignat Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-02-18
Authors: Tara Herrick; Kerry A Thomson; Michelle Shin; Sarah Gannon; Vivien Tsu; Silvia de Sanjosé Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Helen Kelly; Iman Jaafar; Michael Chung; Pamela Michelow; Sharon Greene; Howard Strickler; Xianhong Xie; Mark Schiffman; Nathalie Broutet; Philippe Mayaud; Shona Dalal; Marc Arbyn; Silvia de Sanjosé Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-09-27