Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. 1998

M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030, USA. follen_mitchell@gyn.mda.uth.tmc.edu

OBJECTIVE To quantify by meta-analysis the performance of colposcopy to set a standard against which new technologies can be compared. METHODS MEDLINE was searched for articles on colposcopy for diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL). The search selected articles from 1960 to 1996 combining the key word "colposcopy" with key words "diagnosis," "positive predictive value," "negative predictive value," "likelihood ratio," and "receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve." METHODS Articles were selected if the authors studied a population of patients with abnormal screening Papanicolaou smears and presented raw data showing for each cervical lesion type the number of patients judged positive and negative by colposcopic impression versus the standard of colposcopic biopsy results. Nine of 86 studies met these criteria. RESULTS Biopsies had been categorized as normal, atypia, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) I, CIN II, CIN III, carcinoma in situ, and invasive cancer; we recalculated performance measures using the Bethesda system. Overall sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, ROC curves, and the corresponding areas under the curves were calculated. The average weighted sensitivity of diagnostic colposcopy for the threshold normal compared with all cervix abnormalities (atypia, low-grade SIL, high-grade SIL, cancer) was 96% and the average weighted specificity 48%. For the threshold normal cervix and low-grade SIL compared with high-grade SIL and cancer, average weighted sensitivity was 85% and average weighted specificity 69%. Likelihood ratios generated small but important changes in probability for distinguishing normal cervix and low-grade SIL from high-grade SIL and cancer. Areas under the ROC curve were 0.80 for the threshold normal cervix compared with all abnormalities and 0.82 for the threshold normal cervix and low-grade SIL compared with high-grade SIL and cancer. CONCLUSIONS Colposcopy compares favorably with other medical diagnostic tests in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve. New diagnostic methods for the cervix can be compared with colposcopy using these quantified values.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries
D011237 Predictive Value of Tests In screening and diagnostic tests, the probability that a person with a positive test is a true positive (i.e., has the disease), is referred to as the predictive value of a positive test; whereas, the predictive value of a negative test is the probability that the person with a negative test does not have the disease. Predictive value is related to the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Negative Predictive Value,Positive Predictive Value,Predictive Value Of Test,Predictive Values Of Tests,Negative Predictive Values,Positive Predictive Values,Predictive Value, Negative,Predictive Value, Positive
D002578 Uterine Cervical Dysplasia Abnormal development of immature squamous EPITHELIAL CELLS of the UTERINE CERVIX, a term used to describe premalignant cytological changes in the cervical EPITHELIUM. These atypical cells do not penetrate the epithelial BASEMENT MEMBRANE. Cervical Dysplasia,Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia,Cervix Dysplasia,Dysplasia of Cervix Uteri,Neoplasia, Cervical Intraepithelial,Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia, Grade III,Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasms,Intraepithelial Neoplasia, Cervical,Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine,Cervical Dysplasias,Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasm,Cervix Uteri Dysplasia,Cervix Uteri Dysplasias,Dysplasia, Cervical,Dysplasia, Cervix,Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical,Intraepithelial Neoplasm, Cervical,Intraepithelial Neoplasms, Cervical,Neoplasm, Cervical Intraepithelial,Neoplasms, Cervical Intraepithelial
D002583 Uterine Cervical Neoplasms Tumors or cancer of the UTERINE CERVIX. Cancer of Cervix,Cancer of the Cervix,Cancer of the Uterine Cervix,Cervical Cancer,Cervical Neoplasms,Cervix Cancer,Cervix Neoplasms,Neoplasms, Cervical,Neoplasms, Cervix,Uterine Cervical Cancer,Cancer, Cervical,Cancer, Cervix,Cancer, Uterine Cervical,Cervical Cancer, Uterine,Cervical Cancers,Cervical Neoplasm,Cervical Neoplasm, Uterine,Cervix Neoplasm,Neoplasm, Cervix,Neoplasm, Uterine Cervical,Uterine Cervical Cancers,Uterine Cervical Neoplasm
D003127 Colposcopy The examination, therapy or surgery of the cervix and vagina by means of a specially designed endoscope introduced vaginally. Colposcopic Surgical Procedures,Surgical Procedures, Colposcopic,Colposcopic Surgery,Surgery, Colposcopic,Colposcopic Surgeries,Colposcopic Surgical Procedure,Colposcopies,Procedure, Colposcopic Surgical,Procedures, Colposcopic Surgical,Surgeries, Colposcopic,Surgical Procedure, Colposcopic
D005260 Female Females
D006801 Humans Members of the species Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens,Man (Taxonomy),Human,Man, Modern,Modern Man
D012372 ROC Curve A graphic means for assessing the ability of a screening test to discriminate between healthy and diseased persons; may also be used in other studies, e.g., distinguishing stimuli responses as to a faint stimuli or nonstimuli. ROC Analysis,Receiver Operating Characteristic,Analysis, ROC,Analyses, ROC,Characteristic, Receiver Operating,Characteristics, Receiver Operating,Curve, ROC,Curves, ROC,ROC Analyses,ROC Curves,Receiver Operating Characteristics
D012680 Sensitivity and Specificity Binary classification measures to assess test results. Sensitivity or recall rate is the proportion of true positives. Specificity is the probability of correctly determining the absence of a condition. (From Last, Dictionary of Epidemiology, 2d ed) Specificity,Sensitivity,Specificity and Sensitivity

Related Publications

M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
May 2001, Zhonghua fu chan ke za zhi,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
January 1999, Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
January 1996, Archives of family medicine,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
January 1996, Archives of family medicine,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
October 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
January 1999, Przeglad lekarski,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
January 1999, Journal of lower genital tract disease,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
September 1994, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
June 2003, Collegium antropologicum,
M F Mitchell, and D Schottenfeld, and G Tortolero-Luna, and S B Cantor, and R Richards-Kortum
December 2004, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology,
Copied contents to your clipboard!