Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can visual inspection with acetic acid under magnification substitute colposcopy in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in low-resource settings?

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid under magnification (VIAM) and colposcopy for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) to determine if VIAM can substitute colposcopy in identifying the biopsy site in screen-positive cases.

Methods

A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out on 408 symptomatic multiparous women in the reproductive age group (15–49 years) at a tertiary care teaching hospital. VIAM and colposcopy were used to screen for cervical precancerous lesions. Screen-positive women underwent guided biopsy and endocervical curettage. The site of biopsy was recorded as VIAM guided or colposcopy guided. Histopathology was taken as the gold standard.

Results

The mean age was 32.3 ± 6.8 years (range 15–49), whilst the mean parity was 2.9 ± 1.2 (range 1–9). A total of 113 women screened positive. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of VIAM and colposcopy were 95, 78, 19, 99 and 79%, and 86, 79, 18, 99 and 79%, respectively for high-grade lesions.

Conclusions

VIAM can be a useful alternative to colposcopy when the latter is not available, as it has better sensitivity and equivalent specificity for detecting high-grade CIN.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shastri SS, Dinshaw K, Amin G, Goswami S, Patil S, Chinoy R, Kane S, Kelkar R, Muwonge R, Mahe C, Ajit D, Sankaranarayanan R (2005) Concurrent evaluation of visual, cytological and HPV testing as screening methods for the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Mumbai, India. Bull World Health Organ 83(3):186–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Murthy NS, Juneja A, Sehgal A, Prabhakar AK, Luthra UK (1990) Cancer projection by the turn of century—Indian scene. Indian J Cancer 27(2):74–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC (2001) Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. JAMA 285(24):3017–3115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim YT, Kim JW, Kim SH, Kim YR, Kim JH, Yoon BS, Park YW (2005) Clinical usefulness of cervicogram as a primary screening test for cervical neoplasia. Yonsei Med J 46(2):213–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parashari A, Singh V, Sehgal A, Satyanarayana L, Sodhani P, Gupta MM (2000) Low-cost technology for screening uterine cervical cancer. Bull World Health Organ 78(8):964–967

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Winkler JL, Tsu VD, Bishop A, Scott R, Sellors JW (2003) Confirmation of cervical neoplasia using a hand-held, lighted magnification device. Int J Gynecol Obstet 81(1):35–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ngelangel CA, Limson GM, Cordero AD, Abelardo AD, Avila JM, Festin MR, UP-DOH CCSHOSG (2003) Acetic-acid guided visual inspection vs. cytology-based screening for cervical cancer in the Philippines. Int J Gynecol Obstet 83(2):141–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wright TC (2002) Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: an analysis of factors influencing test performance. Cancer 94(6):1699–1707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wainwright H, Wright TC (2000) Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settings. Cancer 89:826–833

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goel A, Gandhi G, Batra S, Bhambhani S, Zutshi V, Sachdeva P (2005) Visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid for cervical intraepithelial lesions. Int J Gynecol Obstet 88:25–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Doh AS, Nkele NN, Achu P, Essimbi F, Essame O, Nkegoum B (2005) Visual inspection with acetic acid and cytology as screening methods for cervical lesions in Cameroon. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 89(2):167–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Belinson J, Pretorius R, Zhange W, Wu LY, Qiao Y, Elson P (2001) Cervical cancer screening by simple visual inspection after acetic acid. Obstet Gynecol 98(3):441–444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cronje HS, Parham JP, 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 188:395–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sankaranarayanan R, Basu P, Wesley RS, Mahe C, Keita N, Mbalawa CC, Sharma R, Dolo A, Shastri SS, Nacoulma M, Nayama M, Somanathan T et al (2004) Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: results from an IARC multicentric study in India and Africa. Int J Cancer 110:907–913

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Basu PS, Sankaranarayanan R, Mandal R, Roy C, Das P, Choudhary D, Bhattacharya D, Chatterjee R, Dutta K, Barik S, Tsu V, Chakrabarti RN, Calcutta Cervical Cancer Early Detection Group et al (2003) Visual inspection with acetic acid and cytology in the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Kolkata, India. Int J Gynecol Cancer 13(5):626–632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sankaranarayanan R, Shastri SS, Basu P, Mahe C, Mandal R, Amin G, Roy C, Muwonge R, Goswami S, Das P, Chinoy R, Frappart L et al (2004) The role of low-level magnification in visual inspection with acetic acid for the early detection of cervical neoplasia. Cancer Detect Prev 28(5):345–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mitchell MF, Schottenfeld D, Tortolero-Luna G, Cantor SB, Richards-Kortum R (1998) Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 91:626–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Olaniyan OB (2002) Validity of colposcopy in the diagnosis of early cervical neoplasia—a review. Afr J Reprod Health 6:59–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pretorius RG, Zhang WH, Belinson JL, Huang MN, Wu LY, Zhang X, Qiao YL (2004) Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:430–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schneider A, Hoyer H, Lotz B, Leistritza S, Kuhne-Heid S, Nindl L, Muller B, Haerting J, Durst M (2000) Screening for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, cancer by testing for high-risk HPV, routine cytology or colposcopy. Int J Cancer 89:529–534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Winkler JL, Lewis K, Del Aguila R, Gonzales M, Delgado JM, Tsu VD, Sellors JW (2008) Is magnification necessary to confirm visual inspection of cervical abnormalities? A randomized trial in Peru. Rev Panam Salud Publica 23(1):1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sellors JW, Winkler JL, Keyser DF (2004) Illumination, optics, and clinical performance of a hand-held magnified visual inspection device (AviScope): a comparison with colposcopy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 37(S3):S160–S166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reid R, Scalzi P (1985) Genital warts and cervical cancer. VII. An improved colposcopic index for differentiating benign papillomaviral infections from high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 153:611–618

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The instrument for this study (Magnavisualizer) was provided by Dr Aditya Parashari and the Indian Council of Medical Research. Statistical analysis was done by Prof RM Pandey at the Department of Biostatistics at All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maulana Azad Medical College and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Swaraj Batra, Gauri Gandhi & Vijay Zutshi

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Flat No 1119, Vasto, Mahagun Mansion, 1/4, Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, 201014, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Pakhee Aggarwal

Authors
  1. Pakhee Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Swaraj Batra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gauri Gandhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vijay Zutshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pakhee Aggarwal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aggarwal, P., Batra, S., Gandhi, G. et al. Can visual inspection with acetic acid under magnification substitute colposcopy in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in low-resource settings?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284, 397–403 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1673-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1673-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation