EFFICIENCY OF TRUSCREEN OPTOELECTRONIC TECHNIQUE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF PRECANCEROUS PROCESSES OF THE CERVIX UTERI


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Objective. To study the efficiency of optoelectronic scanning of the cervix uteri in female patients with morphologically verified cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN I—III). Subjects and methods. The study included 56 patients aged 19 to 48 years who were diagnosed as having uterine cervical pathology. The preliminary comprehensive examination of the cervix uteri involved colposcopy, cytology of ecto- and endocervical smears, and HPV test using polymerase chain reaction techniques for viral typing by hybrid capture in order to estimate a viral load and to make a histological examination of biopsy specimens. Optoelectronic scanning was carried out after varying uterine cervical dysplastic processes were histologically verified. The examination was carried out, by slightly touching the cervix uteri surface with a probe under the control of light indicators. 15 to 25 points (mean 21 points) were scanned according to the area of involvement. The session took 3—4 min. Results were given to a paper carrier in two variants: 1) abnormal (pathological changes were detected in uterine cervical tissue, CIN was present) and 2) normal (CIN was absent). Cytological and histological diagnoses and optoelectronic scanning findings were tabulated. Results. The optoelectronic technology demonstrated the sensitivity comparable with that of cytological (LSIL, 65.3%; HSIL, 86.7%), histological (CIN I, 64.7%; CIN II, 78.9%; CIN III, 88.9%), and colposcopic methods in diagnosing both cervical intraepitalial lesions as a whole and high-severity ones. Conclusion. The study using the TruScreen optoelectronic technique demonstrated its high sensitivity in the diagnosis of cervical intraepitalial lesions, mainly high-severity ones. The use of the TruScreen in addition to cytological examination allows the sensitivity of cervical screening to be increased.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

T. N BEBNEVA

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia

Email: bebn@mail.ru

V. N PRILEPSKAYA

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia

Email: VPrilepskaya@mail.ru

A. V TAGIEVA

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia

Email: aigun2002@mail.ru

References

  1. Комарова Е.В. Клиническое значение тестирования на вирус папилломы человека в скрининге цервикальной интраэпителиальной неоплазии: Автореф. дис.. канд. мед. наук. - М., 2010.
  2. Минкина Г.Н., Манухин И.Б., Франк Г.А. Предрак шейки матки. - М.: Аэрограф-медиа, 2001. - С. 66-69.
  3. Прилепская В.Н. Профилактика рака шейки матки // Гинекология. - 2007. - Т. 9, № 1. - С. 12-18.
  4. Чиссов В.И., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2009 г. (заболеваемость и смертность). - М., 2010.
  5. Coppleson M., Canfell K., Skladnev V. The Polarprobe - An instantaneous optoelectronic approach to cervical screening // CME J. Gynecol. Oncol. - 2000. -Vol. 5. - P. 31-38.
  6. Denny L., Kuhn L., Pollack A., Wright T.C. Jr. Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: an analysis of factors influencing test performance // Cancer. - 2002. - Vol. 94. -P. 1699-1707.
  7. Monsonego J. Prevention of cervical cancer: screening, progress and perspectives // Presse Med. — 2007. — Vol. 36, № 1, pt 2. — P. 92—111.
  8. Robertson A.J., Anderson J.M., Beck J.S. et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens // J. Clin. Pathol. — 1989. Vol. 42. — P. 231—238.
  9. Safaeian M., Solomon D., Castle P.E. Cervical cancer prevention-cervical screening: science in evolution // Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. N. Am. — 2007. Vol. 34, № 4. — P. 739—760.
  10. Singer A., Coppleson M., Canfell K. et al. A real time optoelectronic device as an adjunct to the Pap smear for cervical screening: a multicenter evaluation // Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. — 2003. — Vol. 13, № 6. — P. 804—111.
  11. Solomon D., Davey D., Kurman R. et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology // J.A.M.A. —2002. — Vol. 287, № 16. — P. 2114—2119.
  12. Sung H.Y., Kearney K.A., Miller M. et al. Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan // Cancer. — 2000. — Vol. 88, № 10. — P. 2283—2289.
  13. UK Department of Health. Report of the cervical screening program. Bulletin 2001/22, September, 2001.
  14. Wright T.C.Jr., Cox J.T., Massad L.S. et al. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities // J.A.M.A. —2002. —Vol. 287, № 16. — P. 2120—2129.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2012 Bionika Media