Advertisement

Prospective Study of Comparison of Clinical [Bedside] Examination Versus Examination Under Anaesthesia in Staging of Carcinoma Cervix at VIMS, Bellary

  • H. C. Shiva Kumar
  • K. Chandrashekhar
  • Suman S. Gaddi
  • T. Chandrashekhar
Original Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

(1) To compare the bedside staging method and EUA staging methods for staging cervical cancer. (2) To identify factors that may limit bedside staging method for cervical cancer.

Methodology

The patients suspected of cervical cancer and scheduled for EUA, biopsy and staging on the theatre list were subjected to bedside staging method on the ward on day 1 and on day 2 same patient subjected for EUA staging method. Clinicians performing the staging as EUA were blinded from the results of the bedside staging method. Findings of bedside are compared with EUA.

Results

The study found a correlation of 0.73, 0.81 and 1.00 for the speculum, bimanual and per rectal examination assessment processes, respectively, during bedside method as compared to the EUA. The sensitivity and accuracy of the speculum examination during bedside staging method were 90 and 70%, respectively, while bimanual examination had sensitivity and accuracy of 68 and 65%, respectively. Overall, the bedside staging method to assign the accurate stage of the cervical cancer had a correlation of 0.929 with the sensitivity, positive predictive value and an accuracy of 87.5, 67 and 64%, respectively.

Conclusion

The sample was insufficient to recommend abandoning the EUA staging method for bedside staging method. The bedside staging method under investigation had a high sensitivity of 87.5%, a positive predictive value of 67% and an accuracy of 64%. However, it was more often associated with over-staging than under-staging. The limitations arising from patient factors were statistically insignificant.

Keywords

Bedside examination EUA Staging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We hereby would like to thank Dr. Suman Gaddi Professor and HOD, Department of OBG, Dr. Sreenivasalu the superintendent of VIMS, Dr. Krishna Swamy Director and Principal VIMS, Bellary, to allow us to publish this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed Consent

Informed consent was taken from all participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Berek JS, Hacker NF (2015) Berek and Hackers gynaecologic oncology, 6th edn. Wolter and kluvers publication.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eifel PJ, Jhingran A, Levenback CF, Tucker S. Predictive value of a proposed subclassification of stages I and II cervical cancer based on clinical tumor diameter. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19(1):2–7 PMID: 19258933.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pecorelli S, Denny L, Ngan H, Hacker N. The new FIGO staging system for cancers of the vulva, cervix, endometrium and sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;115:325–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fotra R, Gupta S, Gupta S et al. (2014) Sociodemographic risk factors for cervical cancer in Jammu region of Jand k state of India first ever report from Jammu Indian J Sci Res 9(1):105–10. ISSN: 0976-2876 (Print). DOI:  10.5958/2250-0138.2014.00018.2.
  5. 5.
    Pecorelli S, Zigliani L, Odicino F. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;105:107–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prasad V, Thulkar S, Hari S, Sharma DN, Kumar S, et al. Role of computed tomography (CT) scan in staging of cervical carcinoma. Indian J Med Res. 2014;139:714–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Özsarlak Ö, Tjalma W, Schepens E, Corthouts B, Op de Beeck B, Van Marck E, Parizel PM, De Schepper AM, et al. The correlation of preoperative CT, MR imaging, and clinical staging (FIGO) with histopathology findings in primary cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2338. doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1928-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen PT, Froeding LP. Pelvic radiotherapy and sexual function in women. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4(2):186–205. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.04.06.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berza N, Vitols J, Vitols J, Reinis A, Skadins I, Macuks R et al. The influence of adjuvant radiotherapy on ovarian function, menopausalsymptoms and quality of sexual life in cervical cancer patients. Int J Collabor Res Intern Med Public Health. 2013;5(6):377–85.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman MS, Cardosi RJ, Roberts WS, Fiorica JV, Grendys EC Jr, Griffin D, et al. Accuracy of pelvic examination in the assessment of patients with operable Cervicalcancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(4):986–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vijayanagara Institute of Medical SciencesBellaryIndia

Personalised recommendations