AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Suboptimal sensitivity is currently reported for Pap test in screening for cervical cancer. Colposcopy is known to be more sensitive than cytology but its use as a screening test is not possible due to costs and complexity. Screening by cervicography has been suggested as a compromise being less costly and feasible. The present study evaluates the feasibility of screening by cervicography and cervicoscopy (naked eye examination of the cervix after acetic acid lavage) on a consecutive screening series. METHODS: Cervicography and cervicoscopy were performed by the smear taker in subjects consecutively attending a screening clinic. Women with abnormal cytology (atypia or more severe lesion) and/or abnormal cervicography or cervicoscopy (acetowhite lesion) underwent colposcopic assessment. The three screening methods were compared according to positivity rate, CIN 2-3 detection rate and positive predictive value. RESULTS: 2105 consecutive subjects were screened. Positivity rate was 3.8%, 15.3% or 25.4% for cytology, cervicography or cervicoscopy, respectively, 486 of 555 women attended the assessment phase, 281 directed biopsies were performed and 8 CIN 2-3 lesions were detected. Cytology, cervicography and cervicoscopy, detected 5.5, or 7 of 8 CIN 2-3 lesions, respectively. The positive predictive value was 0% for cytologic atypia, 25% for cytologic SIL, 1.75% for cervicography and 2.05% for cervicoscopy. Detecting one CIN 2-3 lesion at cytology cost $5,543. The cost per each additional cytologically negative CIN 2-3 lesion detected at cervicography or cervicoscopy was $12,947 or $3,916, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the limited sensitivity of cytology for CIN 2-3. The association of cervicography was not cost effective. Cervicoscopy was poorly specific but increased the detection rate of CIN 2-3 at relatively low costs. Cervicoscopy is worth further evaluation as a screening test.
AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Suboptimal sensitivity is currently reported for Pap test in screening for cervical cancer. Colposcopy is known to be more sensitive than cytology but its use as a screening test is not possible due to costs and complexity. Screening by cervicography has been suggested as a compromise being less costly and feasible. The present study evaluates the feasibility of screening by cervicography and cervicoscopy (naked eye examination of the cervix after acetic acid lavage) on a consecutive screening series. METHODS: Cervicography and cervicoscopy were performed by the smear taker in subjects consecutively attending a screening clinic. Women with abnormal cytology (atypia or more severe lesion) and/or abnormal cervicography or cervicoscopy (acetowhite lesion) underwent colposcopic assessment. The three screening methods were compared according to positivity rate, CIN 2-3 detection rate and positive predictive value. RESULTS: 2105 consecutive subjects were screened. Positivity rate was 3.8%, 15.3% or 25.4% for cytology, cervicography or cervicoscopy, respectively, 486 of 555 women attended the assessment phase, 281 directed biopsies were performed and 8 CIN 2-3 lesions were detected. Cytology, cervicography and cervicoscopy, detected 5.5, or 7 of 8 CIN 2-3 lesions, respectively. The positive predictive value was 0% for cytologic atypia, 25% for cytologic SIL, 1.75% for cervicography and 2.05% for cervicoscopy. Detecting one CIN 2-3 lesion at cytology cost $5,543. The cost per each additional cytologically negative CIN 2-3 lesion detected at cervicography or cervicoscopy was $12,947 or $3,916, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms the limited sensitivity of cytology for CIN 2-3. The association of cervicography was not cost effective. Cervicoscopy was poorly specific but increased the detection rate of CIN 2-3 at relatively low costs. Cervicoscopy is worth further evaluation as a screening test.
Authors: R Wesley; R Sankaranarayanan; B Mathew; B Chandralekha; A Aysha Beegum; N S Amma; M K Nair Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1997 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Maribel Almonte; Catterina Ferreccio; Silvana Luciani; Miguel Gonzales; Jose M Delgado; Carlos Santos; Manuel Alvarez; Jack Cuzick; Peter Sasieni Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240