Yonsei Med J.  2005 Apr;46(2):213-220. 10.3349/ymj.2005.46.2.213.

Clinical Usefulness of Cervicogram as a Primary Screening Test for Cervical Neoplasia

• Kim YT
• Kim JW
• Kim SH
• Kim YR
• Kim JH
• Yoon BS
• Park YW

• KMID: 1734046
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2005.46.2.213

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the cervicogram as a primary screening test for cervical neoplasia. A total of 294 women who had undergone a cervicogram and a Pap test between January and July 2003, were selected. The diagnostic accuracy of the Pap test, cervicogram, and the Pap test combined with a cervicogram were compared with the histopathologic diagnosis. Among 294 women, the Pap test was negative in 130 cases and positive in 164 cases. Among patients with positive Pap test, cervicogram were negative in 101 cases (61.6%) and positive in 63 cases (38.4%). The diagnostic accuracy between cervicogram with positive Pap test and histology was as follows; sensitivity 44.9%, specificity 78.3%, positive predictive value 84.1%, negative predictive value 32.7%, false positive rate 15.9%, and false negative rate 67.3%. Although the adjunctive use of cervicogram with the Pap test in the initial screening of cervical neoplasia showed a higher specificity and higher positive predictive value compared to the Pap test alone, consideration in terms of lower sensitivity, lower positive predictive value, higher false positive rate and cost-effectiveness should be given in lieu of clinically applying cervicogram with the pap test as an initial screening test.

Keyword

Cervicogram; primary screening test; diagnostic accuracy; the Pap test

MeSH Terms

Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cervix Neoplasms/diagnosis/*pathology
Cervix Uteri/*pathology
Female
Humans
Mass Screening/*methods
Middle Aged
Photography/*standards
Predictive Value of Tests
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Sensitivity and Specificity
Vaginal Smears

Reference

1. Farley J, Parkin DM, Pisani P. GLOBOCAN: Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide, IARC Cancer Base 3. 1998. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

2. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer. 1999. 80:827–841.

3. Singer A, Jordan JA. The management of premalignant cervical disease. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1978. 5:629–637.

4. Coppleson LW, Brown B. Estimation of the screening error rate from the observed detection rates in repeated cervical cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974. 119:953–958.

5. Namgung SE. Diagnosis and management of premalignant conditions of the cervix. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 1980. 23:89–107.

6. Ferris DG, Payne P, Ferisch LE. Cervicography: an intermediate triage test for the evaluation of cervical atypia. J Fam Pract. 1993. 37:463–468.

7. Maggi R, Zannoni E, Giorda G. Comparison of repeated smear, colposcopy and colposcopically directed biopsy in the evaluation of mildly abnormal smear. Gynecol Oncol. 1989. 35:294–296.

8. Stafl A. Cervicography: A new method for cervical cancer detection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981. 139:815–825.

9. Hocutt JE, Clark RR, Pfenninger JL. Papanicolaou testing and colposcopic screening. J Fam Pract. 1992. 34:38–40.

10. Burke L. Cervicography: An alternative modality of cervical screening. Diag Cytopathol. 1990. 6:1–2.

11. Kim SC, Kim CJ, Kim JH. New Cervicography: the usefulness as a primary screening test of the cervical cancer. Korean J Cancer. 1997. 1:108–117.

12. Sankaranarayanan R, Black R, Parkin DM. Cancer survival in developing countries, LARC Scientific Publications No.145. 1998a. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

13. IARC working group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programs. Screening for squamous cervical cancer; duration of low risk after negative cytology and its implication for screening policies. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986. 293:659–664.

14. Laura E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries; association with organized screening programs. Lancet. 1987. 30:1247–1249.

15. Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, Ruffing-Kullmann B. The validation of cervical cytology-sensitivity, specificity and predictive value. Acta Cytol. 1991. 35:8–14.

16. Richart RM. Evaluation of the true false negative in cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1964. 89:723–731.

17. Sherman ME, Mango LJ, Kelly D. PAPNET Analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 1994. 9:411–415.

18. Orr WJ Jr, Shingleton HM. Screening in cancer of the cervix. 1995. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company.

19. Giles JA, Hudson E, Crow J, et al. Colposcopic assessment of the accuracy of cervical cytology screening. Br Med J. 1988. 296:1099–1102.

20. Han SK, Ahn WS, Lee JM. Correlation of cytology, colposcopy and cervicography in the diagnosis of early cervical neoplasia. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 1988. 31:1738–1746.

21. Favaheirier G, Fejgin MD. Diagnostic value of colposcopy in the investigation of cervical neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980. 137:588–596.

22. Stafl A. Cervicography: a new approach to cervical cancer detection, presented at the conference on early cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 1981. 12:292–301.

23. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Edwards R. The use of cervicography in the primary screening service. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991. 98:313–317.

24. Campion MJ, Reid R. Screening for gynecologic cancer. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1990. 17:695–727.

25. Kang SE, Kim YT, Kim JW. Can cervicography play a supportive role in the screening of uterine cervical cancer? Korean J Gynecol Oncol Colpo. 1998. 9:115–122.

26. Ahn TG, Kim TJ, Han SJ. The clinical usefulness of the combined tests (Papanicolau smear + cervicography) for screening of cervical cancer. Korean J Gynecol Oncol Colpo. 2001. 12:210–216.