Comparison Between Modified Reid Index and Swede Score in Visual Inspection by Acetic Acid (VIA)-Positive Women Suspected of Cervical Cancer

Abstract

Background

Modified Reid index helps to objectively differentiate between low-grade and high-grade lesions during colposcopy; however, its differentiating ability is often debated. Swede score is a relatively newer score for the purpose. In the present study, we compared the efficacy of modified Reid index and Swede score in evaluation of visual inspection by acetic acid (VIA) positive women.

Method

A total of 57 VIA-positive women underwent colposcopic evaluation followed by histopathological confirmation. Women with obvious growth, previous procedures on the cervix, pregnancy, nulliparity and history of pelvic irradiation were excluded. Colposcopic findings were scored using modified Reid index and Swede score, respectively. The diagnostic efficacy of modified Reid index and Swede score was done using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values.

Results

Mean age of women was 37.53 ± 8.98 years. On colposcopy, according to modified Reid index, a total of 26 (45.6%) were likely to be CIN I, 29 (50.9%) were CIN I/II, and 2 (3.5%) were CIN II/III. According to Swede score, 38 (66.7%) were low grade (normal/CIN I), 11 (19.3%) were high grade (non-invasive CIN II or above) and 8 (14%) were high grade (suspected invasive/CIN II or above). On histopathology, 34 (59.6%) were diagnosed as cervicitis, 10 (17.5%) were low grade (CIN I/mild dysplasia), 5 (8.8%) high grade (CIN II/moderate dysplasia), 2 high grade (CIN III/severe dysplasia) and 6 (10.5%) carcinoma cervix, respectively. For high-grade lesions/carcinoma at a cut-off value 8 or above modified Reid index had sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 33.3%, 100%, 100% and 92.7%, respectively, as compared to 61.5%, 100%, 100% and 88.6%, respectively, for Swede score at a cut-off > 7.

Conclusion

For high-grade lesions, Swede score was found to be more sensitive as compared to modified Reid index in VIA-positive women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    World Health Organization. Cervical cancer. https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cervical-cancer/en/. Accessed on 8th July 2019.

  2. 2.

    Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, Denny L. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2019;393(10167):169–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Arbyn M, Castellsague X, DeSanjose S, et al. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:2675–86.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Yeole BB, Kumar AV, Kurkureet A, Sunny L. Population-based survival from cancers of breast, cervix and ovary in women in Mumbai. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004;5:308–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    ICO Information Centre on HPV and cancer (Summary Report 2014-08-22).Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in India. 2014.

  6. 6.

    Crosbie EJ, Einstein MH, Franceschi S, Kitchener HC. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2013;382:889–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Guidelines WHO. WHO Guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention. New evidence on the impact of cervical cancer screening and treatment using HPV DNA tests, visual inspection, or cytology. Cervical Cancer Prevention Fact Sheet. 2009.

  9. 9.

    Sankaranarayanan R, Rajkumar R, Esmy PO, et al. Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of ‘see and treat’ with cryotherapy by nurses in a cervical screening study in India. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:738–43.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, et al. Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:153–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pretorius RG, Bao YP, Belinson JL, et al. Inappropriate gold standard bias in cervical cancer screening studies. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:2218–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sellors JW, Sankaranarayanan R, editors. Colposcopy and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a beginner’s manual. IARC; 2003-04.

  13. 13.

    Mishra GA, Pimple SA, Shastri SS. An overview of prevention and early detection of cervical cancers. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2011;32(3):125–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Reid R, Stanhope CR, Herschman BR, Crum CP, Agronow SJ. Genital warts and cervical cancer. IV. A colposcopic index for differentiating subclinical papilloma viral infection from cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;149:815–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Reid R, Scalzi P. Genital warts and cervical cancer. VII. An improved colposcopic index for differentiating benign papillomaviral infections from high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;153:611–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Strander B, Ellström-Andersson A, Franzén S, Milsom I, Rådberg T. The performance of a new scoring system for colposcopy in detecting high-grade dysplasia in the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84:1013–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kushwah S, Kushwah B. Correlation of two colposcopic indices for predicting premalignant lesions of cervix. J Mid-life Health. 2017;8:118–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bowring J, Strander B, Young M, Evans H, Walker P. The Swede Score: evaluation of a scoring system designed to improve the predictive value of colposcopy. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 2010;14(4):301–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Coppleson M, Dalrymple JC, Atkinson KH. Colposcopic differentiation of abnormalities arising in the transformation zone. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 1993;20:83–110.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Penumalli S, Diana VG, Kasthuri TB. Evaluation of colposcopy using Swede score in screening of cervical cancer. J Evolut Med Dent Sci. 2017;6(94):6868–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bariha K, Sharma A, Agrawal M. Cytology versus colposcopy for diagnosis of precancerous lesions of cervix. IOSR J Dental Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS). 2016;15(6):76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Deshpande S, Yelikar K, Andurkar S, Dahitankar S. Role of colposcopy using modified Reid’s index in screening of cervical cancer in women with abnormal cervix on naked eye examination. JEMDS. 2014;3(4):902–5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Chaudhary R, Inamdar S, Hariharan C. Correlation of diagnostic efficacy of unhealthy cervix by cytology, colposcopy and histopathology in women of rural areas. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3:213–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Patil P, Sharma P. Colposcopic evaluation of cervical erosion in symptomatic women. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(6):2207–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kärrberg C, Ryd W, Strander B, Brännström M, Rådberg T. Histological diagnosis and evaluation of the Swede score colposcopic system in a large cohort of pregnant women with atypical cervical cytology or cervical malignancy signs. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:952–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rodpenpear N, Pataradool K. The efficacy of modified Swede Colposcopic Index in prediction of high-grade lesion and cancer of cervix. J Gynecol Oncol. 2019;30(5):e78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ranga R, Rai S, Kumari A, et al. A comparison of the strength of association of Reid colposcopic index and Swede score with cervical histology. J Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2017;21(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shipra Kunwar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Usmani, K.Z., Kunwar, S., Sinha, P. et al. Comparison Between Modified Reid Index and Swede Score in Visual Inspection by Acetic Acid (VIA)-Positive Women Suspected of Cervical Cancer. Indian J Gynecol Oncolog 18, 64 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40944-020-00407-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cervical cancer
  • Colposcopy
  • Visual inspection by acetic acid (VIA)
  • Modified Reid index
  • Swede score