Knowledge of Cytology Results Affects the Performance of Colposcopy: a Crossover Study

Overview

Journal BMC Womens Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2024 Mar 22

PMID 38515088

Authors

Eva Lalande

Holly Clarke

Manuela Undurraga

Vu Quoc Huy Nguyen

Cyril Jaksic

Frederic Goffin

Marc Arbyn

Jose Jeronimo

Jean-Christophe Tille

Essia Saiji

Pierre Vassilakos

Patrick Petignat

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether knowledge of cytology affects the colposcopist's diagnostic accuracy in the identification of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and worse (≥ CIN2).

Method: In this cross-over study, healthcare professionals interpreted colposcopy images from 80 patient cases with known histological diagnoses. For each case, 2 images taken with a colposcope were provided (native and after acetic acid application). Inclusion criteria consisted of women with a transformation zone type 1 or 2, who had both a cytological and histological diagnosis. Cases were distributed across two online surveys, one including and one omitting the cytology. A wash-out period of six weeks between surveys was implemented. Colposcopists were asked to give their diagnosis for each case as < CIN2 or ≥ CIN2 on both assessments. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare the two interpretations.

Results: Knowledge of cytology significantly improved the sensitivity when interpreting colposcopic images, from 51.1% [95%CI: 39.3 to 62.8] to 63.7% [95%CI: 52.1 to 73.9] and improved the specificity from 63.5% [95%CI: 52.3 to 73.5] to 76.6% [95%CI: 67.2 to 84.0]. Sensitivity was higher by 38.6% when a high-grade cytology (ASC-H, HSIL, AGC) was communicated compared to a low-grade cytology (inflammation, ASC-US, LSIL). Specificity was higher by 31% when a low-grade cytology was communicated compared to a high-grade.

Conclusions: Our data suggests that knowledge of cytology increases sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of ≥ CIN2 lesions at colposcopy. Association between cytology and histology may have contributed to the findings.

References

Sarian L, Derchain S, Naud P, Roteli-Martins C, Longatto-Filho A, Tatti S . Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America. This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study. J Med Screen. 2005; 12(3):142-9. DOI: 10.1258/0969141054855328. View

Jukic D, Drogowski L, Martina J, Parwani A . Clinical examination and validation of primary diagnosis in anatomic pathology using whole slide digital images. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011; 135(3):372-8. DOI: 10.5858/2009-0678-OA.1. View

Mitchell M, Schottenfeld D, Tortolero-Luna G, Cantor S, Richards-Kortum R . Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91(4):626-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00006-4. View

Massad L, Collins Y . Strength of correlations between colposcopic impression and biopsy histology. Gynecol Oncol. 2003; 89(3):424-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-8258(03)00082-9. View

Dickinson J, Stankiewicz A, Popadiuk C, Pogany L, Onysko J, Miller A . Reduced cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Canada: national data from 1932 to 2006. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12:992. PMC: 3562530. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-992. View

Wesley R, Sankaranarayanan R, Mathew B, Chandralekha B, Aysha Beegum A, Amma N . Evaluation of visual inspection as a screening test for cervical cancer. Br J Cancer. 1997; 75(3):436-40. PMC: 2063368. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1997.72. View

Wentzensen N, Walker J, Smith K, Gold M, Zuna R, Massad L . A prospective study of risk-based colposcopy demonstrates improved detection of cervical precancers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218(6):604.e1-604.e8. PMC: 8771458. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.02.009. View

Bekkers R, van de Nieuwenhof H, Neesham D, Hendriks J, Tan J, Quinn M . Does experience in colposcopy improve identification of high grade abnormalities?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008; 141(1):75-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.07.007. View

Singh V, Sehgal A, Luthra U . Screening for cervical cancer by direct inspection. BMJ. 1992; 304(6826):534-5. PMC: 1881403. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.304.6826.534. View

10.

Gutierrez-Fragoso K, Acosta-Mesa H, Cruz-Ramirez N, Hernandez-Jimenez R . Optimization of Classification Strategies of Acetowhite Temporal Patterns towards Improving Diagnostic Performance of Colposcopy. Comput Math Methods Med. 2017; 2017:5989105. PMC: 5514345. DOI: 10.1155/2017/5989105. View

11.

Benoy I, Broeck D, Ruymbeke M, Sahebali S, Arbyn M, Bogers J . Prior knowledge of HPV status improves detection of CIN2+ by cytology screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(6):569.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.101. View

12.

Fachetti-Machado G, Figueiredo-Alves R, Moreira M . Performance of Conventional Cytology and Colposcopy for the Diagnosis of Cervical Squamous and Glandular Neoplasias. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018; 40(7):410-416. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1666995. View

13.

Moss E, Redman C, Arbyn M, Dollery E, Petry K, Nieminen P . Colposcopy training and assessment across the member countries of the European Federation for Colposcopy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 188:124-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.03.012. View

14.

Numnum T, Kirby T, Leath 3rd C, Huh W, Alvarez R, Straughn Jr J . A prospective evaluation of "see and treat" in women with HSIL Pap smear results: is this an appropriate strategy?. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2005; 9(1):2-6. DOI: 10.1097/00128360-200501000-00002. View

15.

Campbell W, Talmon G, Foster K, Baker J, Smith L, Hinrichs S . Visual memory effects on intraoperator study design: determining a minimum time gap between case reviews to reduce recall bias. Am J Clin Pathol. 2015; 143(3):412-8. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPUC3TYMS3QOBM. View

16.

Liu A, Gold M, Schiffman M, Smith K, Zuna R, Dunn S . Comparison of Colposcopic Impression Based on Live Colposcopy and Evaluation of Static Digital Images. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2016; 20(2):154-61. PMC: 4808516. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000194. View

17.

Barut M, Kale A, Kuyumcuoglu U, Bozkurt M, Agacayak E, Ozekinci S . Analysis of Sensitivity, Specificity, and Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Smear and Colposcopy in Diagnosis of Premalignant and Malignant Cervical Lesions. Med Sci Monit. 2015; 21:3860-7. PMC: 4678924. DOI: 10.12659/msm.895227. View

18.

Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, de Sanjose S, Saraiya M, Ferlay J . Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2019; 8(2):e191-e203. PMC: 7025157. DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6. View

19.

Nielsen P, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J, Starklint H, Waldstrom M, Nielsen B . Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum Pathol. 2010; 41(12):1770-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2010.05.015. View

20.

Pretorius R, Belinson J, Zhang W, Burchette R, Elson P, Qiao Y . The colposcopic impression. Is it influenced by the colposcopist's knowledge of the findings on the referral Papanicolaou smear?. J Reprod Med. 2001; 46(8):724-8. View