Cargando…

Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION: Cervicouterine cancer (CC) is a health problem worldwide and is the fourth most common cancer in women, with a greater proportion of individuals affected by advanced stages of the disease in developing countries. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TruScreen™...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salazar-Campos, J. E., González-Enciso, A., Díaz-Molina, R., Lara-Hernández, M. E., Coronel-Martínez, J., Pérez-Plasencia, C., de León, D. Cantú
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30089942
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17
_version_ 1783342061185925120
author Salazar-Campos, J. E.
González-Enciso, A.
Díaz-Molina, R.
Lara-Hernández, M. E.
Coronel-Martínez, J.
Pérez-Plasencia, C.
de León, D. Cantú
author_facet Salazar-Campos, J. E.
González-Enciso, A.
Díaz-Molina, R.
Lara-Hernández, M. E.
Coronel-Martínez, J.
Pérez-Plasencia, C.
de León, D. Cantú
author_sort Salazar-Campos, J. E.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Cervicouterine cancer (CC) is a health problem worldwide and is the fourth most common cancer in women, with a greater proportion of individuals affected by advanced stages of the disease in developing countries. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TruScreen™ opto-electronic device vs. conventional cytology in CC screenings. METHODOLOGY: This is a prospective observational study that included individuals who presented for the first time at the Dysplasia Clinic of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from March 1 through April 30, 2016, and those referred due to abnormal conventional cytology. The patients were evaluated with the TruScreen™ device, conventional cytology, colposcopy and, if necessary, cervical biopsy. The results were analyzed by descriptive statistics as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the TruScreen™, using conventional cytology as the standard. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included who met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the patients was 40 years (range, 23–61 years). For the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial lesions, the TruScreen™ device showed a 43% sensitivity, a 92% specificity, a PPV of 60%, and a NPV of 85%, whereas evaluation via cervical biopsy exhibited a 33% sensitivity, an 86% specificity, a 33% PPV, and an 86% NPV. The Kappa agreement index of the TruScreen™ with the colposcopies was 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: TruScreen™ demonstrated low sensitivity and high specificity compared with conventional cytology, which had a high NPV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6060572
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60605722018-08-08 Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study Salazar-Campos, J. E. González-Enciso, A. Díaz-Molina, R. Lara-Hernández, M. E. Coronel-Martínez, J. Pérez-Plasencia, C. de León, D. Cantú J Cytol Original Article INTRODUCTION: Cervicouterine cancer (CC) is a health problem worldwide and is the fourth most common cancer in women, with a greater proportion of individuals affected by advanced stages of the disease in developing countries. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TruScreen™ opto-electronic device vs. conventional cytology in CC screenings. METHODOLOGY: This is a prospective observational study that included individuals who presented for the first time at the Dysplasia Clinic of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from March 1 through April 30, 2016, and those referred due to abnormal conventional cytology. The patients were evaluated with the TruScreen™ device, conventional cytology, colposcopy and, if necessary, cervical biopsy. The results were analyzed by descriptive statistics as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the TruScreen™, using conventional cytology as the standard. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included who met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the patients was 40 years (range, 23–61 years). For the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial lesions, the TruScreen™ device showed a 43% sensitivity, a 92% specificity, a PPV of 60%, and a NPV of 85%, whereas evaluation via cervical biopsy exhibited a 33% sensitivity, an 86% specificity, a 33% PPV, and an 86% NPV. The Kappa agreement index of the TruScreen™ with the colposcopies was 0.70. CONCLUSIONS: TruScreen™ demonstrated low sensitivity and high specificity compared with conventional cytology, which had a high NPV. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6060572/ /pubmed/30089942 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Cytology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Salazar-Campos, J. E.
González-Enciso, A.
Díaz-Molina, R.
Lara-Hernández, M. E.
Coronel-Martínez, J.
Pérez-Plasencia, C.
de León, D. Cantú
Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study
title Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study
title_full Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study
title_fullStr Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study
title_full_unstemmed Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study
title_short Cervicouterine Cancer Screening – TruScreen™ vs. Conventional Cytology: Pilot Study
title_sort cervicouterine cancer screening – truscreen™ vs. conventional cytology: pilot study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060572/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30089942
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17
work_keys_str_mv AT salazarcamposje cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy
AT gonzalezencisoa cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy
AT diazmolinar cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy
AT larahernandezme cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy
AT coronelmartinezj cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy
AT perezplasenciac cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy
AT deleondcantu cervicouterinecancerscreeningtruscreenvsconventionalcytologypilotstudy