Advertisement

A Study of Sensitivity of Visual Inspection of the Cervix with Acetic Acid in Cervical Cancer Screening

  • Helmy A. RadyEmail author
  • Zinab Gaber
  • Abdelfatah Agamia
  • Mahmoud Melies
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Visual inspection tests with 3–5% acetic acid (VIA) and/or Lugol’s iodine (VILI) appear to be a satisfactory alternative screening approach to cytology. These tests have been used since the 1990s, mainly in poor-resource settings. They are simple and cost-effective with relative ease of use and may be performed by different health care workers (physicians, nurse, midwives and technicians). Moreover, this approach does not require high technology or infrastructure and has been shown to reduce mortality in developing countries.

Methods

The study was conducted on 1000 women recruited for gynaecology outpatient clinic at El Shatby Maternity University Hospital after giving of written consent. VIA was done by applying 3–5% acetic acid to the cervix using a cotton swab, checking the transformation zone carefully for any dense, non-movable aceto-white areas in the epithelium or any raised and thickened white plaques.

Results

The summary sensitivity and specificity of VIA were 84.1% and 53.8%, respectively; VIA was sensitive in detecting more severe outcome, although there was a slight loss in specificity. Apparent heterogeneity existed in sensitivity and specificity for VIA.

Conclusions

High sensitivity of VIA was found when a combination of colposcopy and histology was used as disease confirmation, so it could be a good option for cervical screening in low-resource settings.

Keywords

VIA Cancer cervix CIN 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All procedures included are approved by ethical committee of faculty of medicine, university of Alexandria.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:359–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruni L, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, Albero G, Aldea M, Serrano B, Valencia S, et al. ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases Reports. Accessed 2017. p. March 20. Available from: 2 http://www.hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/XWX.pdf.
  3. 3.
    LaMontagne DS, Barge S, Le NT, Mugisha E, Penny ME, Gandhi S, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine delivery strategies that achieved high coverage in low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:821–830B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Practice Bulletin No. 157. Cervical cancer screening and prevention. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(1):e1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stuver S, Adami HO. Cervical cancer. In: Adami HO, Hunter D, Trichopoulos D, editors. Textbook of cancer epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 340–58.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical-cancer screening: test qualities in a primary-care setting. University of Zimbabwe/JHPIEGO Cervical Cancer Project. Lancet. 1999;353(9156):869–73.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, Keita N, Dolo A, Mbalawa CG, et al. Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:153–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sauvaget C, Fayette JM, Muwonge R, Wesley R, Sankaranarayanan R. Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113:14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Anorlu R, Sangwa-Lugoma G, Denny LA. Infrastructure requirements for human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Vaccine. 2013;31(Suppl 5):F47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright TC, Kuhn L. Alternative approaches to cervical cancer screening for developing countries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaffikin L, Blumenthal PD, Emerson M, Limpaphayom K. Safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach to cervical-cancer prevention in rural Thailand: a demonstration project. Lancet. 2003;361:814–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blumenthal PD, Gaffikin L, Deganus S, Lewis R, Emerson M, Adadevoh S. Cervical cancer prevention: safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach in Accra, Ghana. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(407):e1–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Basu P, Wesley RS, Mahe C, Keita N, Mbalawa CC, et al. Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa. Int J Cancer. 2004;110:907–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bigoni J, Gundar M, Tebeu PM, Bongoe A, Schäfer S, Fokom-Domgue J, et al. Cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a randomized trial of VIA versus cytology for triage of HPV-positive women. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murillo R, Luna J, Gamboa O, Osorio E, Bonilla J, Cendales R. Cervical cancer screening with naked-eye visual inspection in Colombia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109:230–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li N, Shi JF, Franceschi S, Zhang WH, Dai M, Liu B, et al. Different cervical cancer screening approaches in a Chinese multicentre study. Br J Cancer. 2009;100:532–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Rajkumar R, Muwonge R, Swaminathan R, Shanthakumari S, et al. Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2007;370:398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Gaffikin L, Jacob M, Sellors J, Robles S. A critical assessment of screening methods for cervical neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89(Suppl 2):S4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Massad LS, Jeronimo J, Katki HA, Schiffman M. The accuracy of colposcopic grading for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2009;13:137–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383:524–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmy A. Rady
    • 1
    Email author
  • Zinab Gaber
    • 1
  • Abdelfatah Agamia
    • 1
  • Mahmoud Melies
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of Alexandria, El Shatby Maternity University HospitalAlexandriaEgypt

Personalised recommendations