Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1994 Jul;70(1):125–128. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1994.260

Is there a role for cervicography in the detection of premalignant lesions of the cervix uteri?

M Coibion 1, P Autier 1, P Vandam 1, A Delobelle 1, F Huet 1, D Hertens 1, M Vosse 1, M Andry 1, P De Sutter 1, R Heimann 1, et al.
PMCID: PMC2033300  PMID: 8018522

Abstract

The characteristics of cervicography and the Papanicolaou smear test have been compared for the detection of cervix lesions classified as CIN I or more. A total of 4,015 women were entered into the study. The sensitivity of cervicography is significantly higher (McNemar test, P < 0.0001), but its specificity remains significantly lower (McNemar test, P < 0.0001), and its higher sensitivity does not apply to lesions classified as CIN II or more (high-grade lesions). Hence, if patients with a positive screen result are to be referred for colposcopy-biopsy, cervicography is not a suitable alternative to the smear test for the screening of cervical cancer. However, cervicography can be envisaged as a complementary tool to the smear test because of (a) its higher capability to detect high-grade lesions among women less than 35 years old and (b) its potential superiority in following low-grade lesions. It may also serve as a tool for quality assurance audit of the smear test.

Full text

PDF
125

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brecht J. G., Robra B. P. A graphic method of estimating the specificity of screening programmes from incomplete follow-up data. Methods Inf Med. 1987 Jan;26(1):53–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Day N. E. Screening for cancer of the cervix. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1989 Jun;43(2):103–106. doi: 10.1136/jech.43.2.103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jones D. E., Creasman W. T., Dombroski R. A., Lentz S. S., Waeltz J. L. Evaluation of the atypical Pap smear. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Sep;157(3):544–549. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(87)80004-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lără E., Day N. E., Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet. 1987 May 30;1(8544):1247–1249. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)92695-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Schatzkin A., Connor R. J., Taylor P. R., Bunnag B. Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Apr;125(4):672–678. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Spitzer M., Krumholz B. A., Chernys A. E., Seltzer V., Lightman A. R. Comparative utility of repeat Papanicolaou smears, cervicography, and colposcopy in the evaluation of atypical Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 May;69(5):731–735. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Stafl A. Cervicography: a new method for cervical cancer detection. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Apr 1;139(7):815–825. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(81)90549-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Szarewski A., Cuzick J., Edwards R., Butler B., Singer A. The use of cervicography in a primary screening service. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Mar;98(3):313–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb13400.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Tawa K., Forsythe A., Cove J. K., Saltz A., Peters H. W., Watring W. G. A comparison of the Papanicolaou smear and the cervigram: sensitivity, specificity, and cost analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Feb;71(2):229–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Verbeek A. L., Van den Ban M. C., Hendriks J. H. A proposal for short-term quality control in breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 1991 Feb;63(2):261–264. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES