The Accuracy of Colposcopic Grading for Detection of High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Objective. To relate aspects of online colposcopic image assessment to the diagnosis of grades 2 and 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2+). Methods: To simulate colposcopic assessment, we obtained digitized cervical images at enrollment after acetic acid application from 919 women referred for equivocal or minor cytologic abnormalities into the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. For each, 2 randomly assigned evaluators from a pool of 20 colposcopists assessed images using a standardized tool online. We calculated the accuracy of these assessments for predicting histologic CIN 2+ over the 2 years of study. For validation, a subset of online results was compared with same-day enrollment colposcopic assessments. Results. Identifying any acetowhite lesion in images yielded high sensitivity: 93% of women with CIN 2+ had at least 1 acetowhite lesion. However, 74% of women without CIN 2+ also had acetowhitening, regardless of human papillomavirus status. The sensitivity for CIN 2+ of an online colpophotographic assessment of high-grade disease was 39%. The sensitivity for CIN 2+ of a high-grade diagnosis by Reid Index scoring was 30%, and individual Reid Index component scores had similar levels of sensitivity and specificity. The performance of online assessment was not meaningfully different from that of same-day enrollment colposcopy, suggesting that these approaches have similar utility. Conclusions. Finding acetowhite lesions identifies women with CIN 2+, but using subtler colposcopic characteristics to grade lesions is insensitive. All acetowhite lesions should be assessed with biopsy to maximize sensitivity of colposcopic diagnosis with good specificity.

[1]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. , 2001, JAMA.

[2]  Sameer Antani,et al.  Digital Tools for Collecting Data from Cervigrams for Research and Training in Colposcopy , 2006, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[3]  S. Patni,et al.  A prospective follow up study of women with colposcopically unconfirmed positive cervical smears , 1999, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[4]  M. Sherman,et al.  Histopathologic extent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 lesions in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study: implications for subject safety and lead-time bias. , 2003, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[5]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  P. Diggle Analysis of Longitudinal Data , 1995 .

[7]  R. Reid,et al.  Genital warts and cervical cancer. VII. An improved colposcopic index for differentiating benign papillomaviral infections from high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 1985, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  P. Bitterman,et al.  Correlation between colposcopically directed biopsy and cervical loop excision. , 1996, Gynecologic oncology.

[9]  Rodney Long,et al.  Preparing Digitized Cervigrams for Colposcopy Research and Education: Determination of Optimal Resolution and Compression Parameters , 2006, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[10]  P. McCullagh Regression Models for Ordinal Data , 1980 .

[11]  J. T. Cox More questions about the accuracy of colposcopy: what does this mean for cervical cancer prevention? , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver Agreement in the Evaluation of Digitized Cervical Images , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  Colposcopy at a crossroads. , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  Diane Solomon,et al.  Number of Cervical Biopsies and Sensitivity of Colposcopy , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  W. Huh,et al.  Diagnostic Loop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedure for Discrepancy: Do Preoperative Factors Predict Presence of Significant Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia? , 2006, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[17]  L. Hurley,et al.  Where's the High‐Grade Cervical Neoplasia? The Importance of Minimally Abnormal Papanicolaou Diagnoses , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver Agreement in the Assessment of Components of Colposcopic Grading , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  Mario Sideri,et al.  Interobserver Variability of Colposcopic Interpretations and Consistency with Final Histologic Results , 2004, Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease.

[21]  C. Wheeler,et al.  A comparison of a prototype PCR assay and hybrid capture 2 for detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus DNA in women with equivocal or mildly abnormal papanicolaou smears. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[22]  D. Ferris,et al.  Prediction of cervical histologic results using an abbreviated Reid Colposcopic Index during ALTS. , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.