Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is visual inspection with acetic acid better than cervical cytology to screen women ≥40 years of age for carcinoma cervix? A cross-sectional study on proportion of screen-positive women (by VIA and cervical cytology) having CIN II/III lesion on cervical biopsy: difference between two age groups and among screening methods

  • Gynecologic Oncology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Proportion of CIN II/III lesion on cervical biopsy among screen-positive women of age group <40 years and ≥40 years undergoing screening for carcinoma cervix by Pap smear and visual inspection of cervix with acetic acid (VIA) was determined (both the tests were performed on same population). Difference in proportion of CIN II/III lesion among screen-positive women, between two age groups (for both methods) and between methods (for both age groups) was determined.

Result

In <40 years age group, proportion of screen-positive women with CIN II/III lesion was similar for both cytology or VIA (12.95 vs. 9.8%). For ≥40 year age group, compared to cytology, VIA detected higher proportions of CIN II or III lesion (4.1 vs. 13.3%). Proportion of screen-positive women having CIN II/III lesion was higher in <40 years compared to ≥40 year age group (12.95 vs. 4.1%) with cytology, while for VIA no difference was detected in between age groups (9.8 vs. 13.3%).

Conclusion

Cytological screening is less sensitive in women ≥40 years while VIA has a uniform sensitivity for both groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and related cancers in india: summary report 2010. Available at http://www.who.int/hpvcentre

  2. Directorate General of Health Services (1984) National Cancer Control Program of India. Government of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stjernsward J, Eddy D, Luthra UK, Stanley K (1987) Plotting a new course for cervical cancer in developing countries. World Health Frm 8:42–45

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM et al (2009) HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 360(14):1385–1394

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sankaranarayanan R, Basu P, Wesley RS, Mahe C, Keita N, Mbalawa CCG, Sharma R, Dolo A, Shastri SS, Nacoulma M, Nayama M, Somanathan T, For the IARC Multicentre Study Group on Cervical Cancer Early Detection (2004) Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: Results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa. Int J Cancer 110:907–913

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Rajkumar R (2007) Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamilnadu, India: a cluster randomized trial. Lancet 370:398–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. ASC-US-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group (2003) Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(6):1383–1392

    Google Scholar 

  8. Saminathan T, Lahoti C, Kannan V, Kline TS (1994) Postmenopausal squamous-cell atypias: a diagnostic challenge. Diagn Cytopathol 11:226–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Keating JT, Wang HH (2001) Significance of a diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance for papanicolaou smears in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Cancer 93(2):100–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Dinshaw KA, Mahe C, Jayant K, Shastri SS, Malvi SG, Chinoy SG, Kelkar R, Budukh AM, Keskar V, Rajeshwarker R, Muwonge R et al on behalf of the Osmanabad District Cervical Screening Study Group (2005) A cluster randomized controlled trial of visual, cytology and human papillomavirus screening for cancer of the cervix in rural India. Int J Cancer 116:617–623

    Google Scholar 

  11. Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, Keita N, Dolo A, Mbalawa CG, Nouhou H, Sakande B, Wesley R, Somanathan T, Sharma A, Shastri S, Basu P (2008) Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 123(1):153–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M et al (2002) The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 287(16):2114–2119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sankaranarayanan R, Wesley R (2003) A practical manual on visual screening for cervical neoplasia: IARC Technical Publication No. 41. Int Agency for Res Cancer, IARC Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cytryn A, Russomano FB, de Camargo MJ, Zardo LMG, Horta NMSR, de Paula Fonseca RCS et al (2009) Prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades II/III and cervical cancer in patients with cytological diagnosis of atypical squamous cells when high-grade intraepithelial lesions (ASC-H) cannot be ruled out. Sao Paulo Med J 127(5):283–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ali PM, Ali SZ (2003) Atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance- rule out high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: cytopathological characteristics and clinical correlates. Diagn Cytopathol 28(6):308–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE (2004) The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 364:249–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bray F, Loos AH, McCarron P, Weiderpass E, Arbyn M, Møller H, Hakama M, Parkin DM (2005) Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(3):677–686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R (2001) Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Org 79:954–962

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sarian LO, Derchain S, Shabalova I, Tatti S, Naud P, Longatto-Filho A, Syrjänen S, Members of the Latin American Screening Study (LAMS), New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (NIS) Groups (2010) Optional screening strategies for cervical cancer using standalone tests and their combinations among low- and medium-income populations in Latin America and Eastern Europe. J Med Screen 17(4):195–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A, Ghiringhello B, Girlando S, Gillio-Tos A, De Marco L, Naldoni C, Pierotti P, Rizzolo R, Schincaglia P, Zorzi M, Zappa M, Segnan N, Cuzick J, New Technologies for Cervical Cancer screening (NTCC) Working Group (2010) Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 11(3):249–257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Leinonen M, Nieminen P, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Malila N, Tarkkanen J, Laurila P, Anttila A (2009) Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening versus conventional cytology in a randomized setting. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(23):1612–1623

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S (2007) Human papilloma virus and cervical cancer. Lancet 370:890–907

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cibas ES, Browne TJ, Bassichis MHM, Lee KR (2005) Enlarged squamous cell nuclei in cervical cytologic specimens from perimenopausal women (“PM Cells”) a cause of ASC overdiagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol 124:58–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kainz C, Tempfer C, Gitsch G, Heinz H, Reinthaller A, Breitenecker G (1995) Influence of age and human papillomavirus-infection on reliability of cervical cytopathology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 256:23–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. McGrath CM (2002) ASCUS in papanicolaou smears problems, controversies, and potential future directions. Am J Clin Pathol 117(Suppl 1):62–75

    Google Scholar 

  26. Autier P, Coibion M, Huet F, Grivegneel AR (1996) Transformation zone location and intraepithelial neoplasia of the cervix uteri. Br J Cancer 74:488–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Pathology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (IPGMER), 273, Harinibash, Nungi Station Pally, P.O. Batanagar, DT. 24 PG(S), Kolkata, 743313, West Bengal, India

    Subhankar Dasgupta

  2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, K.P.C Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, 32, West Bengal, India

    Sudhindramohan Bhattacharya

Authors
  1. Subhankar Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sudhindramohan Bhattacharya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Subhankar Dasgupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dasgupta, S., Bhattacharya, S. Is visual inspection with acetic acid better than cervical cytology to screen women ≥40 years of age for carcinoma cervix? A cross-sectional study on proportion of screen-positive women (by VIA and cervical cytology) having CIN II/III lesion on cervical biopsy: difference between two age groups and among screening methods. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1731–1736 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2228-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2228-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation