Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 9;8(9):85. doi: 10.3390/cancers8090085

Table 1.

Advantages and disadvantages of traditional cancer screening tools for cervical and oropharyngeal cancers.

Screening Tools Cancer Advantages Disadvantages Performance
Pap smear Cervical

  • Widely used

  • Expensive

  • Not suitable for low-resource settings

  • Requires trained personnel

  • Long assay time (days)

  • se: 51% a

  • sp: 67% a

  • ppv: 96% a

  • npv: 8% a
Liquid-based cytology Cervical

  • Sample standardization

  • Increased adoption

  • More sensitive than Pap

  • More expensive than Pap smear

  • Not suitable for low-resource settings

  • Requires trained personnel

  • Long assay time (days)

  • se: 55% a

  • sp: 78% a

  • ppv: 98% a

  • npv: 10% a
VIA Cervical

  • Inexpensive

  • Ideal for low-resource settings

  • Fast results (few minutes)

  • Requires trained personnel

  • se: 63% b

  • sp: 66% b

  • ppv: 37% b

  • npv: 85% b
HPV antibody detection Cervical/Oral

  • Direct detection of HPV

  • Able to detect genes related to high-risk HPV

  • Non-specific as not all HPV results in cancer

  • se: 58% c

  • sp: 97% c

  • ppv: 97% c

  • npv: 58% c
Visual Inspection Oral

  • No need of specialized instruments

  • Dependent on dentist’s experience

  • se: 93% d

  • sp: 75% d

  • ppv: 78% d

  • npv: 90% d
Tissue biopsy Cervical/Oral

  • Highest sensitivity/specificity

  • Requires trained personnel

  • Long assay time (days)

  • Invasive for patients

  • Considered gold standard e
Light-based detection systems Oral

  • Improved visualization of the neoplastic region

  • Possibility for automated image analysis

  • Instantaneous results

  • Autofluorescence from non-cancerous cells

  • Not suitable for early screening

  • se: 53% f

  • sp: 56% f

  • ppv: 15% f

  • npv: 89% f

se: sensitivity; sp: specificity; ppv: positive predictive value; npv: negative predictive value; HPV: human papillomavirus; VIA: visual inspection with acetic acid; a Performance when compared to tissue biopsy [46]. Note that these are comparison results from a single study; b Performance when compared to tissue biopsy [47]; c Performance characteristics for 16L1 peptide-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for serological detection of cervical cancer [48]; d An older study on performance of unaided visual inspection or oral lesions [49]; e Performance of other tests were based on the consideration of tissue biopsy as the gold standard; f Performance characteristics for Vizilite technology when compared to biopsy [50].