Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 460, Issue 6, pp 577–585 | Cite as

Performance characteristics of Pap test, VIA, VILI, HR-HPV testing, cervicography, and colposcopy in diagnosis of significant cervical pathology

  • Adhemar Longatto-FilhoEmail author
  • Paulo Naud
  • Sophie FM Derchain
  • Cecília Roteli-Martins
  • Sílvio Tatti
  • Luciano Serpa Hammes
  • Luis Otavio Sarian
  • Mojca Eržen
  • Margherita Branca
  • Jean Carlos de Matos
  • Renata Gontijo
  • Marina Y. S. Maeda
  • Temístocles Lima
  • Silvano Costa
  • Stina Syrjänen
  • Kari Syrjänen
Original Article

Abstract

We sought to evaluate the performance of diagnostic tools to establish an affordable setting for early detection of cervical cancer in developing countries. We compared the performance of different screening tests and their feasibility in a cohort of over 12,000 women: conventional Pap smear, liquid-based cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), visual inspection with Iodine solution (VILI), cervicography, screening colposcopy, and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (HR-HPV) collected by physician and by self-sampling. HR-HPV assay collected by the physician has the highest sensitivity (80 %), but high unnecessary referrals to colposcopy (15.1 %). HR-HPV test in self-sampling had a markedly lower (57.1 %) sensitivity. VIA, VILI, and cervicography had a poor sensitivity (47.4, 55, and 28.6 %, respectively). Colposcopy presented with sensitivity of 100 % in detecting CIN2+, but the lowest specificity (66.9 %). Co-testing with VIA and VILI Pap test increased the sensitivity of stand-alone Pap test from 71.6 to 87.1 % and 71.6 to 95 %, respectively, but with high number of unnecessary colposcopies. Co-testing with HR-HPV importantly increased the sensitivity of Pap test (to 86 %), but with high number of unnecessary colposcopies (17.5 %). Molecular tests adjunct to Pap test seems a realistic option to improve the detection of high-grade lesions in population-based screening programs.

Keywords

Cancer prevention Pap test Hybrid capture Colposcopy Screening program 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the European Commission, INCO-DEV Programme (contract# ICA4-CT-2001-10013). The generous contribution of DIGENE Corporation (USA) donating the HCII tests at our disposal is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that any conflict of interest, mainly financial agreement with companies whose products, are alluded to in the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Estimate 2010: Incidence of cancer in Brazil. [eletronic] Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian National Cancer Institute; 2009 [cited 2010 04/01/2010]; Available from: http://www.inca.gov.br/estimativa/2010/conteudo_view.asp?ID=5
  2. 2.
    Syrjänen K, Naud P, Derchain S, Roteli-Martins C, Longatto-Filho A, Tatti S, Branca M, Erzen M, Hammes LS, Matos J, Gontijo R, Sarian L, Braganca J, Arlindo FC, Maeda MY, Lörincz A, Dores GB, Costa S, Syrjänen S (2005) Comparing PAP smear cytology, aided visual inspection, screening colposcopy, cervicography and HPV testing as optional screening tools in Latin America. Study design and baseline data of the LAMS study. Anticancer Res 25(5):3469–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Longatto-Filho A, Maeda MY, Erzen M, Branca M, Roteli-Martins C, Naud P, Derchain SF, Hammes L, Matos J, Gontijo R, Sarian LO, Lima TP, Tatti S, SyrjäneS SK (2005) Conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology as screening tools in low-resource settings in Latin America: experience of the Latin American screening study. Acta Cytol 49(5):500–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarian LO, Derchain SF, Naud P, Roteli-Martins C, Longatto-Filho A, Tatti S, Branca M, Erzen M, Serpa-Hammes L, Matos J, Gontijo R, Bragança JF, Lima TP, Maeda MY, Lörincz A, Dores GB, Costa S, Syrjänen S, Syrjänen K (2005) 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 12(3): 142-9Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, Keita N, Dolo A, Mbalawa CG, Nouhou SB, Wesley R, Somanathan T, Sharma A, Shastri S, Basu P (2008) Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 123(1):153–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koliopoulos G, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Kyrgiou M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Gynecol Oncol 104(1):232–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD (2000) Matchar DB (2000) Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 132(10):810–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fahey, M.T., Irwin L, P. Macaskill P Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 141(7): 680-9.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG (2008) Bulten J Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 111(1):167–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla Palma P, Naldoni C, Ghiringhello B, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, Parisio F, Pojer A, Schiboni ML, Sintoni C, Zorzi M, Segnan N, Confortini M (2007) Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ doi: 10.1136/bmj.39196.740995.BEGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, Saville AM (2006) Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 367(9505):122–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Austin R, Ramzy I (1998) Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 42(1):178–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sangwa-Lugoma G, Mahmud S, Nasr SH, Liaras J, Kayembe PK, Tozin RR, Drouin P, Lorincz A, Ferenczy A, Franco EL (2006) Visual inspection as a cervical cancer screening method in a primary health care setting in Africa. Int J Cancer 119(6):1389–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Dinshaw KA, Mahe C, Jayant K, Shastri SS, Malvi SG, Chinoy R, Kelkar R, Budukh AM, Keskar V, Rajeshwarker R, Muwonge R, Kane S, Parkin DM, Chauhan MK, Desai S, Fontaniere B, Frappart L, Kothari A, Lucas E, Panse N (2005) A cluster randomized controlled trial of visual, cytology and human papillomavirus screening for cancer of the cervix in rural India. Int J Cancer 116(4):617–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muwonge R, Walter SD, Wesley RS, Basu P, Shastri SS, Thara S, Mbalawa CG, Sankaranarayanan R (2007) Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when two visual inspection methods are combined for cervical cancer prevention. J Med Screen 14(3):144–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahe C, Gaffikin L (2005) Screening test accuracy studies: how valid are our conclusions? Application to visual inspection methods for cervical screening. Cancer Causes Control 16(6):657–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaffikin L, Lauterbach M, Blumenthal PD (2003) Performance of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening: a qualitative summary of evidence to date. Obstet Gynecol Surv 58(8):543–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Wesley R, Thara S, Dhakad N, Chandralekha B, Sebastian P, Chithrathara K, Parkin DM, Nair MK (2003) Test characteristics of visual inspection with 4 % acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) in cervical cancer screening in Kerala, India. Int J Cancer 106(3):404–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Syrjänen K, Derchain S, Roteli-Martins C, Longatto-Filho A, Hammes LS, Sarian L (2008) Value of conventional pap smear, liquid-based cytology, visual inspection and human papillomavirus testing as optional screening tools among Latin American women <35 and > or =35 years of age: experience from the Latin American Screening Study. Acta Cytol 52(6):641–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, Hingmire S, Malvi SG, Thorat R, Kothari A, Chinoy R, Kelkar R, Kane S, Desai S, Keskar VR, Rajeshwarkar R, Panse N, Dinshaw KA (2009) HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 360(14):1385–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, Meijer CJ, Hoyer H, Ratnam S, Szarewski A, Birembaut P, Kulasingam S, Sasieni P, Iftner T (2006) Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 119(5):1095–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Vuyst H, Claeys P, Njiru S, Muchiri L, Steyaert S, De Sutter P, Van Marck E, Bwayo J, Temmerman M (2005) Comparison of Pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, human papillomavirus DNA-PCR testing and cervicography. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 89(2):120–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Longatto-Filho A, Roteli-Martins C, Hammes L, Etlinger D, Pereira SM, Erzen M, Branca M, Naud P, Derchain SF, Sarian LO, Matos J, Gontijo R, Lima T, Maeda MY, Tatti S, Syrjänen S, Syrjänen K (2008) Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as cervical cancer screening option. Experience from the LAMS study. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 29(4):327–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cronjé HS, Parham GP, Cooreman BF, de Beer A, Divall P, Bam RH (2003) A comparison of four screening methods for cervical neoplasia in a developing country. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(2):395–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Costa S, Sideri M, Syrjänen K, Terzano P, De Nuzzo M, De Simone P, Cristiani P, Finarelli AC, Bovicelli A, Zamparelli A, Bovicelli L (2000) Combined Pap smear, cervicography and HPV DNA testing in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. Acta Cytol 44(3):310–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schneider DL, Herrero R, Bratti C, Greenberg MD, Hildesheim A, Sherman ME, Morales J, Hutchinson ML, Sedlacek TV, Lorincz A, Mango L, Wacholder S, Alfaro M, Schiffman M (1999) Cervicography screening for cervical cancer among 8460 women in a high-risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:290–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Sutter P, Coibion M, Vosse M, Hertens D, Huet F, Wesling F, Wayembergh M, Bourdon C, Autier P (1998) A multicentre study comparing cervicography and cytology in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105(6):613–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Wacholder S, Kinney W, Gage JC, Castle PE (2011) Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(5):368–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Clad A, Reuschenbach M, Weinschenk J, Grote R, Rahmsdorf J, Freudenberg N (2011) Performance of the Aptima high-risk human papillomavirus mRNA assay in a referral population in comparison with Hybrid Capture 2 and cytology. J Clin Microbiol 49(3):1071–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Monsonego J, Hudgens MG, Zerat L, Zerat JC, Syrjänen K, Smith JS (2012) Risk assessment and clinical impact of liquid-based cytology, oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and mRNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening (The FASE Study). Gynecol Oncol 125(1):175–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adhemar Longatto-Filho
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Paulo Naud
    • 4
  • Sophie FM Derchain
    • 5
  • Cecília Roteli-Martins
    • 6
  • Sílvio Tatti
    • 7
  • Luciano Serpa Hammes
    • 4
    • 8
  • Luis Otavio Sarian
    • 5
  • Mojca Eržen
    • 9
  • Margherita Branca
    • 10
  • Jean Carlos de Matos
    • 4
  • Renata Gontijo
    • 5
  • Marina Y. S. Maeda
    • 11
  • Temístocles Lima
    • 6
  • Silvano Costa
    • 12
  • Stina Syrjänen
    • 13
  • Kari Syrjänen
    • 14
  1. 1.Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health SciencesUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  2. 2.ICVS/3B’s—PT Government Associate LaboratoryBragaPortugal
  3. 3.Laboratory of Medical Investigation (LIM) 14, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Hospital de Clinicas de Porto AlegrePorto AlegreBrazil
  5. 5.Universidade Estadual de CampinasCampinasBrazil
  6. 6.Hospital Leonor Mendes de Barros (HLMB)São PauloBrazil
  7. 7.First Chair Gynecology Hospital de ClinicasBuenos AiresArgentina
  8. 8.Institute of Education and ResearchHospital Moinhos de VentoPorto AlegreBrazil
  9. 9.SIZE Diagnostic CenterLjubljanaSlovenia
  10. 10.Unit of Cytopathology, National Centre of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Promotion of HealthNational Institute of Health (ISS)RomeItaly
  11. 11.Adolfo Ltz InstiuteSão PauloBrazil
  12. 12.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyS.Orsola-Malpighi HospitalBolognaItaly
  13. 13.Department of Oral PathologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  14. 14.Department of Oncology and RadiotherapyTurku University HospitalTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations