Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T13:45:26.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIAGNOSTIC COLPOSCOPIC ACCURACY BY THE GYNOCULAR AND A STATIONARY COLPOSCOPE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2015

Helena Kopp Kallner ,
Maria Persson ,
Marcus Thuresson ,
Daniel Altman ,
Isaac Shemer ,
Malin Thorsell  and
Elisabeth Andrea Wikström Shemer
Helena Kopp Kallner
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet
Maria Persson
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet
Marcus Thuresson
Affiliation:
Statisticon
Daniel Altman
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet
Isaac Shemer
Affiliation:
Department of Neurophysiology, Karolinska Institutet
Malin Thorsell
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet
Elisabeth Andrea Wikström Shemer
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences at Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala Universityelisabeth@gynocular.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of sensitivity and specificity of cervical lesions by the low-cost, portable Gynocular colposcope and a stationary colposcope, in women referred for colposcopy with abnormal cervical cytology.

Methods: A randomized cross-over clinical trial for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy in detecting cervical lesions by the Gynocular and a stationary colposcope. The Swede score systematic colposcopy system was used for evaluation of colposcopic abnormalities. Directed punch biopsy and excisional cone biopsy were used as the “gold-standard” by histologically confirmed high grade cervical lesions CIN2+ (CIN2, CIN3, CIN3+). In total, 123 women referred for colposcopy due to abnormal cervical cytology were recruited at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. The percentage agreement and the kappa statistic were calculated for Swede score by the Gynocular and a stationary colposcope. Swede scores were compared with the results from directed punch biopsy and excisional cone biopsy.

Results: The Gynocular and the stationary colposcope had a high agreement of Swede scores with a Kappa statistic of 0.947, p < .0001. Punch biopsy diagnosed CIN2+ (CIN2, CIN3, and invasive cancer) in 44 (35.7 percent) women while cytology detected CIN2+ in 34 (27.6 percent) women. There were no significant differences of the sensitivity and specificity for different Swede scores by the Gynocular or a stationary colposcope in detecting CIN 2+.

Conclusions: There were no significant differences in sensitivity or specificity in detecting cervical lesions by the Gynocular or stationary colposcope. The Gynocular is as accurate in diagnosing cervical lesions as a stationary colposcope.

Keywords

Diagnostic accuracyColposcopyGynocularCervixCIN
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , 2015 , pp. 181 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Varicella, S, Lortet-Tieulent, J, Plummer, M, et al. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: Impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:3262–3273.Google Scholar
2. Vaccarella, S, Franceschi, S, Engholm, G, et al. 50 years of screening in the Nordic countries: Quantifying the effects on cervical cancer incidence. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:965–969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Kitchener, H, Canfell, K, Gilham, C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: Extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Abraham, J, Stenger, M. Cobas HPV test for first-line screening for cervical cancer. J Community Support Oncol. 2014;12:156–157.Google Scholar
5. Bosch, FX, Lorincz, A, Muñoz, N, et al. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:244–265.Google Scholar
6. Underwood, M, Arbyn, M, Parry-Smith, W, et al. Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2012;119:1293–1301.Google Scholar
7. El-Sayed, MM, Al-Daraji, WI, Finnegan, CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of active versus conservative colposcopic management of mild dyskaryosis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2009;2:261–266.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Shireman, TI, Tsevat, J, Goldie, SJ, Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:146–152.Google Scholar
9. Sharp, L, Cotton, S, Little, J, et al. Psychosocial impact of alternative management policies for low-grade cervical abnormalities: Results from the TOMBOLA randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Korfage, IJ, Essink-Bot, ML, Westenberg, SM, et al. How distressing is referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening?: A prospective quality of life study. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:142–148.Google Scholar
11. Kitchener, H, Canfell, K, Gilham, C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: Extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–196.Google Scholar
12. McKenna, M, McMenamin, MM. Human papillomavirus testing in young women: Clinical outcomes of human papillomavirus triage in a UK cervical screening program. Cancer Cytopathol. 2014;122:702–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Hitt, WC, Low, G, Bird, TM, et al. Telemedical cervical cancer screening to bridge medicaid service care gap for rural women. Telemed J E Health. 2013;19:403–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Hoover, K, Koumans, EH, Montaño, D, et al. Access of Black, Hispanic, and nonprivately insured women to liquid-based cytology, human papillomavirus DNA testing, and on-site colposcopy in the United States. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2009;13:17–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Ngonzi, J, Bajunirwe, F, Wistrand, C, et al. Agreement of colposcope and gynocular in assessment of cervical lesions by swede score: A randomized, crossover pilot trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2013;17:372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Ashrafun, N, Wistrand, C, Akter Begum, S, et al. Evaluation of stationary colposcope and a hand-held battery driven colposcope, the Gynocular, by Cervical Swede Score in VIA positive women: A cross-over randomized trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24:339–345.Google Scholar
17. Strander, B, Ellström-Andersson, A, Franzén, S, et al. The performance of a new scoring system for colposcopy in detecting high-grade dysplasia in the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84:1013–1017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Bowring, J, Strander, B, Young, M, et al. The Swede score: Evaluation of a scoring system designed to improve the predictive value of colposcopy. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010;14:301–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Cox, JT. More questions about the accuracy of colposcopy: What does that mean for cervical cancer prevention? Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1266–1267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Arbyn, M, Herbert, A, Schenck, U, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid based cytology. Cytopathology. 2007;18:133–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Richart, RM A modified terminology for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:131–133.Google ScholarPubMed
22. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2011.Google Scholar
23. Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement fir categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.Google Scholar
24. Silfverdal, L, Kemetli, L, Andrae, B, et al. Risk of invasive cervical cancer in relation to management of abnormal Pap smear results. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:188.e1-e7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Silfverdal, L, Kemetli, L, Sparén, P, et al. Risk of invasive cervical cancer in relation to clinical investigation and treatment after abnormal cytology: A population-based case-control study. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:1450–1458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Cruickshank, M, Murray, G, Parkin, D, Smart, L, Walker, E. Cytological surveillance compared with immediate referral for colposcopy in management of women with low grade cervical abnormalities: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. TOMBOLA Group. BMJ. 2009;339:b2546.1.Google Scholar
27. Ghosh, I, Mittal, S, Banerjee, D, et al. Study of accuracy of colposcopy in VIA and HPV detection-based cervical cancer screening program. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;54:570–575.Google Scholar
28. Nessa, A, Roy, JS, Chowdhury, MA, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy in detecting cervical lesions by nurses versus doctors using a stationary colposcope and Gynocular in a low-resource setting. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005313.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kallner supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Kallner supplementary material(File)
File 83.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kallner supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Kallner supplementary material(File)
File 115.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kallner supplementary material

Table S1

Download Kallner supplementary material(File)
File 13 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kallner supplementary material

Table S2

Download Kallner supplementary material(File)
File 13.3 KB