Number of Cervical Biopsies and Sensitivity of Colposcopy

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence that type of medical training and number of biopsies have on sensitivity of colposcopically guided biopsies. METHODS: Among 408 women with an adequate enrollment colposcopy and a diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 or cancer (CIN 3+) over 2 years in the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (ASCUS-LSIL) Triage Study, we evaluated factors influencing the sensitivity of the enrollment colposcopic procedure. We used contingency table analysis to examine confounding variables and &khgr;2 tests to ascertain statistical significance. RESULTS: Overall, 69.9% of women with a cumulative diagnosis of CIN 3+ had a “true-positive” enrollment colposcopically guided biopsy result of CIN 2 or worse (CIN 2+), the threshold that would trigger excisional therapy. The sensitivity of the procedure did not vary significantly by type of colposcopist. However, the sensitivity was significantly greater when the colposcopists took two or more biopsies instead of one (P<.01), a pattern observed across all types of colposcopists. Independent of the severity of the colposcopic impression, the frequency with which colposcopists took two or more biopsies instead of one varied (in descending order) from nurse practitioners to general gynecologists to gynecologic oncology fellows to gynecologic oncologists (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Colposcopy with guided biopsy or biopsies detects approximately two thirds of CIN 3+. Although the sensitivity of the procedure does not differ significantly by type of medical training, it is greater when two or more biopsies are taken. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2

[1]  M Arbyn,et al.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis , 2006, The Lancet.

[2]  M. Schiffman,et al.  The distribution of neoplasia arising on the cervix: results from the ALTS trial. , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  B. Jacobsen,et al.  Pregnancy outcome after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for the management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2005, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  Daron G Ferris,et al.  Interobserver Agreement for Colposcopy Quality Control Using Digitized Colposcopic Images During the ALTS Trial , 2005, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

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

[7]  J. Whittaker,et al.  Treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and risk of preterm delivery. , 2004, JAMA.

[8]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Interim Guidance for the Use of Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing as an Adjunct to Cervical Cytology for Screening , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  D. Santini,et al.  Independent determinants of inaccuracy of colposcopically directed punch biopsy of the cervix. , 2003, Gynecologic oncology.

[10]  Joan L. Walker A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  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.

[12]  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.

[13]  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.

[14]  D. Luesley,et al.  Effect of nurse colposcopists on a hospital-based service. , 2002, Hospital medicine.

[15]  P. Elson,et al.  The colposcopic impression. Is it influenced by the colposcopist's knowledge of the findings on the referral Papanicolaou smear? , 2001, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[16]  H. Hoyer,et al.  Colposcopic appearance of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is age dependent. , 1998, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  S. Bishop,et al.  A Comparison of the Evaluation and Treatment of Cervical Dysplasia by Gynecologists and Nurse Practitioners , 1998, The Nurse practitioner.

[18]  Scott B. Cantor,et al.  COLPOSCOPY FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESIONS: A META‐ANALYSIS , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  P. Kenemans,et al.  Positive predictive rate of colposcopic examination of the cervix uteri: an overview of literature. , 1998, Obstetrical & gynecological survey.

[20]  M. Dreyfus,et al.  An analysis of the factors involved in the diagnostic accuracy of colposcopically directed biopsy , 1997, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[21]  M. Dreyfus,et al.  Risk of Cervical Stenosis After Large Loop Excision or Laser Conization , 1996, Obstetrics and gynecology.

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

[23]  M. Frydenberg,et al.  Association between colposcopic findings and histology in cervical lesions: the significance of the size of the lesion. , 1995, Gynecologic oncology.

[24]  M. Sideri,et al.  Operator variability in disease detection and grading by colposcopy in patients with mild dysplastic smears , 1995, Cancer.

[25]  P. Kenemans,et al.  Observer agreement on interpreting colposcopic images of CIN. , 1995, Gynecologic oncology.

[26]  R. Kaufman,et al.  Colposcopically directed biopsy and loop excision of the transformation zone. Comparison of histologic findings. , 1995, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[27]  Lynn E. Ham Quality of Care by Nurse Practitioners Delivering Colposcopy Services , 1995 .

[28]  L. E. Hartz Quality of care by nurse practitioners delivering colposcopy services. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.

[29]  J. Paavonen,et al.  A colposcopic scoring system for grading cervical lesions. , 1995, European journal of gynaecological oncology.

[30]  Gifford Ms,et al.  Quality, access, and clinical issues in a nurse practitioner colposcopy outreach program. , 1993 .

[31]  I. Stone,et al.  Quality, access, and clinical issues in a nurse practitioner colposcopy outreach program. , 1993, The Nurse practitioner.

[32]  A. Beeby Colposcopically directed punch biopsy: a potentially misleading investigation , 1992, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[33]  K. Syrjänen,et al.  Colposcopic analysis of genital human papillomavirus infections during an 8‐year prospective follow‐up , 1991, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[34]  J. L. Benedet,et al.  Colposcopic Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Microinvasive and Occult Invasive Carcinoma of the Cervix , 1985, Obstetrics and gynecology.