Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when two visual inspection methods are combined for cervical cancer prevention

Objectives: The objectives of this study was to establish whether combined screening with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) improves detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2–3 (CIN 2–3) lesions and cancer beyond chance, compared with screening with VIA alone or VILI alone; and to estimate the extra number of false-positive (FP) results per additional disease case found with the combined test, and to estimate the additional costs involved. Setting: Ten cross-sectional studies in Burkina Faso, Congo, Guinea, India, Mali and Niger, between 1999 and 2003. Methods: Using a common protocol, health workers screened 56,147 women aged 25–65 years with VIA and VILI. All women underwent a colposcopy examination and biopsies were taken when necessary. The disease reference standard was histology or negative colposcopy. A positive result on the combined test was defined if either VIA or VILI were positive. The accuracy of the combined test compared with VIA alone or VILI alone was evaluated using likelihood ratios. Results: The estimated sensitivity and specificity were 81.3% and 87.3%, respectively, for VIA; 91.5% and 86.9% for VILI; and 92.9% and 83.5% for the combined test. The ratio of the positive likelihood ratios of the combined test and VIA alone for CIN 2–3 lesions and cancer was 0.88 (95% confidense interval [CI]: 0.86–0.90), favouring use of VIA alone. The ratio of the negative likelihood ratios was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.37–0.47), favouring use of the combined test. Similar results were obtained when the combined test was compared with VILI alone. Assuming equivalent performance of VIA alone and the combined test with a disease prevalence of 2%, there will be about 16.0 (95% CI: 13.6–18.8) additional FPs for each additional true positive (TP) detected if the combined test is used. This number will be 121.1 (95% CI: 75.4–194.6) if VILI is considered as the single test. Conclusions: At the trade-off point between the combined test and VIA alone or VILI alone, given the numbers of additional FP results involved for each additional TP case of disease that were found, it would be more likely that settings already using VIA would advocate combined testing, and for settings using VILI to opt for the single test. The additional costs (per 1000 women) incurred with the combined test would be International $4117.68 versus either of the tests above.

[1]  S. Tatti,et al.  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. , 2006, Journal of medical screening.

[2]  R. Legood,et al.  Screening for cervical cancer in India: How much will it cost? A trial based analysis of the cost per case detected , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[3]  D. Parkin,et al.  A cluster randomized controlled trial of visual, cytology and human papillomavirus screening for cancer of the cervix in rural India , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[4]  A. Doh,et al.  Visual inspection with acetic acid and cytology as screening methods for cervical lesions in Cameroon , 2005, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[5]  M. Temmerman,et al.  Comparison of pap smear, visual inspection with acetic acid, human papillomavirus DNA‐PCR testing and cervicography , 2005, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[6]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics, 2002 , 2005, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[7]  C. Mahé,et al.  Concurrent evaluation of visual, cytological and HPV testing as screening methods for the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Mumbai, India. , 2005, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[8]  Jose Jeronimo,et al.  Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening outside of low-resource settings. , 2005, Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health.

[9]  Eric Lucas,et al.  Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: Results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa , 2004, International journal of cancer.

[10]  Eric Lucas,et al.  Initial results from a randomized trial of cervical visual screening in rural south India , 2004, International journal of cancer.

[11]  R. Pandey,et al.  Visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: evaluation by doctor versus paramedical worker. , 2004, Indian journal of cancer.

[12]  R. Sankaranarayanan,et al.  A Practical Manual on Visual Screening for Cervical Neoplasia , 2003 .

[13]  D. Parkin,et al.  Test characteristics of visual inspection with 4% acetic acid (VIA) and Lugol's iodine (VILI) in cervical cancer screening in Kerala, India , 2003, International journal of cancer.

[14]  T. Wright,et al.  Use of visual screening methods for cervical cancer screening. , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[15]  Les Irwig,et al.  Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Louise Kuhn,et al.  Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening , 2002, Cancer.

[17]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. , 2001, Gynecologic oncology.

[18]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Cervical Cancer Screening by Simple Visual Inspection After Acetic Acid , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  T. Wright,et al.  Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource‐poor settings , 2000, Cancer.

[20]  A. Singer,et al.  Lower Genital Tract Precancer: Colposcopy, Pathology and Treatment , 2000 .