Accuracy of colposcopy in the Swedish screening program.


Journal

Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 2023
Historique:
revised: 26 01 2023
received: 15 11 2022
accepted: 15 02 2023
medline: 6 4 2023
pubmed: 8 3 2023
entrez: 7 3 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Sensitivity and specificity of colposcopy vary greatly between studies and efficacy in clinical studies seldom corresponds with effectiveness in a real-life setting. It is unclear whether colposcopists' experience affects assessment; studies show divergent results. The study's objective was to investigate the accuracy of colposcopies in the Swedish screening program, the variability in colposcopists' assessments and whether degree of experience affects accuracy in a routine setting. Cross-sectional register study. All colposcopic assessments with a concomitant histopathological sample from women aged at least 18 years, performed between 1999 and September 2020 in Sweden. The main outcome measure was accuracy. The accuracy of colposcopic assessments was calculated as overall agreement with linked biopsies, with three outcomes: Normal vs Atypical, Normal vs Low-Grade Atypical vs High-Grade Atypical, and Non-High-Grade Atypical vs High-Grade Atypical. A time-trend analysis was performed. The accuracy of identifiable colposcopists related to experience was analyzed. In total, 82 289 colposcopic assessments with linked biopsies were included for analysis of the outcome Normal vs Atypical; average accuracy was 63%. Overrating colposcopic findings was four times more common than underrating. No time trend in accuracy was noted during the study period. Accuracy in distinguishing High-Grade from Non-High-Grade lesions was better: 76%. Among identifiable colposcopists, overall accuracy was 67%. Some had significantly better accuracy than others, but no correlation with experience was found. Colposcopy, including in a referral setting, has low accuracy in distinguishing Normal from Atypical. Increased experience alone does not lead to improvement. This is supported by the substantial differences in performance between colposcopists.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36879505
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14538
pmc: PMC10072243
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

549-555

Subventions

Organisme : Hjalmar Svensson Foundation
ID : HJSV2020068
Organisme : LUA/ALF
ID : 11315

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).

Références

Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Oct;124(4):670-678
pubmed: 25198268
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 1;33(1):83-9
pubmed: 25422481
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Apr;91(4):626-31
pubmed: 9540955
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Feb 15;142(4):260-73
pubmed: 15710959
Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Jan;92(1):127-34
pubmed: 14751148
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2011 Jul;15(3):180-8
pubmed: 21436729
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Feb;299(2):525-532
pubmed: 30367250
Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Nov;15(11):988-94
pubmed: 18778378
Int J Cancer. 2000 Nov 20;89(6):529-34
pubmed: 11102899
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Oct;110(4):833-40
pubmed: 17906017
N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 18;357(16):1589-97
pubmed: 17942872
Int J Cancer. 2007 Nov 15;121(10):2218-24
pubmed: 17657715
Scand J Urol. 2022 Oct-Dec;56(5-6):343-350
pubmed: 36068973
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Nov;95(11):1258-1263
pubmed: 27564523
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1383-92
pubmed: 12824967
JAMA. 2001 Mar 21;285(11):1500-5
pubmed: 11255427
BJOG. 2022 Jul;129(8):1261-1267
pubmed: 34894043
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Sep;240:182-186
pubmed: 31302386
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 May;102(5):549-555
pubmed: 36879505
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Feb;39(2):184-189
pubmed: 30257594
Int J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun;20(3):579-85
pubmed: 25145298
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;111(6):1279-84
pubmed: 18515509
Infect Agent Cancer. 2015 Nov 19;10:47
pubmed: 26594236
Int J Cancer. 2011 Mar 15;128(6):1354-62
pubmed: 20506504
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Nov;141(1):75-8
pubmed: 18760872
Gynecol Oncol. 2006 Dec;103(3):966-70
pubmed: 16875717
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Aug;108(2):264-72
pubmed: 16880294

Auteurs

Emilia Alfonzo (E)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Chenyang Zhang (C)

Regional Cancer Center West, Western Healthcare Region, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Forogh Daneshpip (F)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Björn Strander (B)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Regional Cancer Center West, Western Healthcare Region, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH