Cargando…

Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard

BACKGROUND: The study aim is to estimate sensitivity and specificity of anal cytology for histologic HSIL in analyses adjusted for the imperfect biopsy reference standard. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Retrospective cohort study of an anal dysplasia screening program for HIV infected adults. We es...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathews, William C., Cachay, Edward R., Caperna, Joseph, Sitapati, Amy, Cosman, Bard, Abramson, Ian
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20808869
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012284
_version_ 1782185588060848128
author Mathews, William C.
Cachay, Edward R.
Caperna, Joseph
Sitapati, Amy
Cosman, Bard
Abramson, Ian
author_facet Mathews, William C.
Cachay, Edward R.
Caperna, Joseph
Sitapati, Amy
Cosman, Bard
Abramson, Ian
author_sort Mathews, William C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The study aim is to estimate sensitivity and specificity of anal cytology for histologic HSIL in analyses adjusted for the imperfect biopsy reference standard. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Retrospective cohort study of an anal dysplasia screening program for HIV infected adults. We estimated the prevalence of histologic HSIL by concurrent cytology category and the associated cytology ROC area. Cytology operating characteristics for HSIL were estimated and adjusted for the imperfect reference standard by 3 methodologies. The study cohort included 261 patients with 3 available measures: (1) referral cytology; (2) HRA cytology; and (3) HRA directed biopsy. The prevalence of biopsy HSIL varied according to the concurrent HRA cytology result: 64.5% for HSIL or ASC-H, 12.6% for LSIL, 10.9% for ASCUS, and 6.3% for no abnormality. The cytology ROC area was 0.78. The observed prevalence of HSIL was 37% (referral cytology), 24% (HRA cytology), and 24% (HRA biopsy). Unadjusted estimates of sensitivity and specificity of cytology were 0.66 and 0.90, respectively. Adjusted estimates varied from 0.47–0.89 (sensitivity) and 0.89—1.0 (specificity). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of a single dataset yields widely different estimates of anal cytology operating characteristics that depend on difficult to verify assumptions regarding the accuracy of the imperfect reference standard.
format Text
id pubmed-2924391
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29243912010-08-31 Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard Mathews, William C. Cachay, Edward R. Caperna, Joseph Sitapati, Amy Cosman, Bard Abramson, Ian PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The study aim is to estimate sensitivity and specificity of anal cytology for histologic HSIL in analyses adjusted for the imperfect biopsy reference standard. METHODS AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Retrospective cohort study of an anal dysplasia screening program for HIV infected adults. We estimated the prevalence of histologic HSIL by concurrent cytology category and the associated cytology ROC area. Cytology operating characteristics for HSIL were estimated and adjusted for the imperfect reference standard by 3 methodologies. The study cohort included 261 patients with 3 available measures: (1) referral cytology; (2) HRA cytology; and (3) HRA directed biopsy. The prevalence of biopsy HSIL varied according to the concurrent HRA cytology result: 64.5% for HSIL or ASC-H, 12.6% for LSIL, 10.9% for ASCUS, and 6.3% for no abnormality. The cytology ROC area was 0.78. The observed prevalence of HSIL was 37% (referral cytology), 24% (HRA cytology), and 24% (HRA biopsy). Unadjusted estimates of sensitivity and specificity of cytology were 0.66 and 0.90, respectively. Adjusted estimates varied from 0.47–0.89 (sensitivity) and 0.89—1.0 (specificity). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of a single dataset yields widely different estimates of anal cytology operating characteristics that depend on difficult to verify assumptions regarding the accuracy of the imperfect reference standard. Public Library of Science 2010-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2924391/ /pubmed/20808869 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012284 Text en This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Public Domain declaration, which stipulates that, once placed in the public domain, this work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mathews, William C.
Cachay, Edward R.
Caperna, Joseph
Sitapati, Amy
Cosman, Bard
Abramson, Ian
Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard
title Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard
title_full Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard
title_fullStr Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard
title_full_unstemmed Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard
title_short Estimating the Accuracy of Anal Cytology in the Presence of an Imperfect Reference Standard
title_sort estimating the accuracy of anal cytology in the presence of an imperfect reference standard
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20808869
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012284
work_keys_str_mv AT mathewswilliamc estimatingtheaccuracyofanalcytologyinthepresenceofanimperfectreferencestandard
AT cachayedwardr estimatingtheaccuracyofanalcytologyinthepresenceofanimperfectreferencestandard
AT capernajoseph estimatingtheaccuracyofanalcytologyinthepresenceofanimperfectreferencestandard
AT sitapatiamy estimatingtheaccuracyofanalcytologyinthepresenceofanimperfectreferencestandard
AT cosmanbard estimatingtheaccuracyofanalcytologyinthepresenceofanimperfectreferencestandard
AT abramsonian estimatingtheaccuracyofanalcytologyinthepresenceofanimperfectreferencestandard