Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 297, Issue 5, pp 1271–1275 | Cite as

Discrepancy between colposcopy, punch biopsy and final histology of cone specimen: a prospective study

  • Stamatios Petousis
  • Panagiotis Christidis
  • Chrysoula Margioula-Siarkou
  • Nikolaos Sparangis
  • Apostolos Athanasiadis
  • Ioannis Kalogiannidis
Gynecologic Oncology
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Τo estimate the discrepancy rate between colposcopy, punch biopsy histology and surgical specimen histology as well as the positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of colposcopic diagnosis for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HGSIL).

Methods

A prospective study was conducted during the period of 2012–2016. Αll cases in which surgical treatment had been applied and histopathological diagnosis of those surgical specimens was available were included. Cases in which ablation was performed and cases with incomplete data or conservative approach were excluded. Primary outcome was the agreement rate between histologic diagnosis of surgical specimen, histologic diagnosis of punch biopsy and colposcopic diagnosis according to REID Colposcopic Index. PPV and NPV of colposcopy and biopsy to diagnose HGSIL were also assessed.

Results

Τhere were 120 cases meeting our inclusion criteria, while biopsy was obtained in 104 cases. Mean age of women was 32.7 ± 9.0. Colposcopic diagnosis was CIN2 in 65 cases, CIN3 in 11 cases, CIN1 or less in 44 cases. Τhe level of agreement was fair between colposcopy-surgical specimen histology (κ value 0.443), fair between colposcopy—punch biopsy (κ value 0.34) and moderate between punch biopsy—cone specimen histology (κ value 0.443). PPV of colposcopy to detect HGSIL was 72.3%, while NPV was only 47.7%.

Conclusion

Punch biopsy and surgical specimen histology present the highest agreement between the different diagnostic procedures. Colposcopy presented satisfying PPV for HGSIL cases, but its NPV was poor. In contrary, punch biopsy was characterized by both satisfying PPV and NPV for HGSIL cases.

Keywords

Colposcopy Punch biopsy Predictive value Discrepancy HGSIL Intervention 

Notes

Author contributions

SP: protocol development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. PC: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. CM-S: protocol development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. NS: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. AA: project supervision, manuscript reviewing. IK: project supervision, manuscript reviewing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

IRB status

Institutional Review Board and Ethical Review Committee have given approval to the present study.

References

  1. 1.
    Swancutt DR, Greenfield SM, Wilson S (2008) Women’s colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study. BMC Womens Health 8:2.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-8-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hong DG, Seong WJ, Kim SY, Lee YS, Cho YL (2010) Prediction of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions using the modified Reid index. Int J Clin Oncol 15(1):65–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-009-0012-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASCUS-LSIL Traige Study (ALTS) Group (2006) A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(6):1393–1400. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12824968. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  4. 4.
    Olaniyan OB (2002) Validity of colposcopy in the diagnosis of early cervical neoplasia—a review. Afr J Reprod Health 6(3):59–69. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12685410. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  5. 5.
    Karimi-Zarchi M, Peighmbari F, Karimi N, Rohi M, Chiti Z (2013) A comparison of 3 ways of conventional pap smear, liquid-based cytology and colposcopy vs cervical biopsy for early diagnosis of premalignant lesions or cervical cancer in women with abnormal conventional pap test. Int J Biomed Sci 9(4):205–210. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24711755. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  6. 6.
    Barut MU, Kale A, Kuyumcuoğlu U et al (2015) Analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of smear and colposcopy in diagnosis of premalignant and malignant cervical lesions. Med Sci Monit 21:3860–3867.  https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.895227 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferris DG, Greenberg MD (1994) Reid’s colposcopic index. J Fam Pract 39(1):65–70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7517993. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  8. 8.
    Petousis S, Kalogiannidis I, Margioula-Siarkou C et al (2017) Cumulative high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion rate and need for surgical intervention of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytology-diagnosed patients: a prospective study. Gynecol Obstet Investig 82(3):247–251.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000448138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tatiyachonwiphut M, Jaishuen A, Sangkarat S et al (2014) Agreement between colposcopic diagnosis and cervical pathology: Siriraj hospital experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15(1):423–426. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24528068. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  10. 10.
    Massad LS, Collins YC (2003) Strength of correlations between colposcopic impression and biopsy histology. Gynecol Oncol 89(3):424–428. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12798706. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  11. 11.
    Akhter S, Bari A, Hayat Z (2015) Variability study between pap smear, colposcopy and cervical histopathology findings. J Pak Med Assoc 65(12):1295-1299. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26627510. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  12. 12.
    Boonlikit S (2011) Correlation between Reid’s colposcopic index and histologic results from colposcopically directed biopsy in differentiating high-grade from low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion at Rajavithi Hospital. J Med Assoc Thail 94(Suppl 2):S59–S65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21717880. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  13. 13.
    Milenković V, Sparić R, Dotlić J et al (2012) Reliability and relationship of colposcopical, cytological and histopathological findings in the diagnostic process. Vojnosanit Pregl 69(10):869–873. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23155608. Accessed 20 Dec 2017
  14. 14.
    Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK et al (2013) 2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis 17(5 Suppl 1):S1–S27.  https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0b013e318287d329 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.3rd Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations