A comparison of triage methods for Kenyan women who screen positive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia by visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid

African Health Sciences

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 362-369

  Lewis, K C L ^a   Tsu, V D ^a   Dawa, A ^b   Kidula, N A ^c   Chami, I N ^b   Sellors, J W ^a,d  

^a PATH   (United States)

^b PATH   (Kenya)

^c MINISTRY OF HEALTH   (Kenya)

^d MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Developing countries; Mass screening; Neoplasms; Precancerous conditions; Uterine cervical neoplasms

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID; LUGOL; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; IODIDE; LUGOL'S SOLUTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ETHNIC GROUP; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KENYAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PUBLIC HOSPITAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RURAL AREA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VISUAL INSPECTION WITH ACETIC ACID; VISUAL INSPECTION WITH ACETIC ACID AND MAGNIFICATION; VISUAL INSPECTION WITH LUGOL IODINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; KENYA; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ACETIC ACID; ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IODIDES; KENYA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRIAGE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84861328250     PISSN: 16806905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. Available at: http://globocan.iarc.fr.
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: cervix cancer screening. Volume 10. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2005.
3. Sankaranarayanan R, Basu P, Wesley RS, Mahe C, Keita N, Mbalawa CC, et al. Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: Results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa. Int J Cancer 2004; 110(6):907-913.
4. Basu PS, Sankaranarayanan R, Mandal R, Roy C, Das P, Choudhury D, et al. Visual inspection with acetic acid and cytology in the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Kolkata, India. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003; 13:626-632.
5. Winkler JL, Tsu VD, Bishop A, Scott R, Sellors JW. Confirmation of cervical neoplasia using a hand-held, lighted magnification device. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 81(1):35-40.
6. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wright T. Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: an analysis of factors influencing test performance. Cancer 2002; 94(6):1699-1707.
7. Gaffikin L, Blumenthal PD, Emerson M, Limpaphayom K. Safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach to cervicalcancer prevention in rural Thailand: a demonstration project. Lancet 2003; 361(9360):814-820.
8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG Statement of Policy: cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(3):607-609.
9. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and National Development. Kenya 1999 population and housing census. Nairobi: Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Planning; 2002.
10. Family Health International. How to be reasonably sure a client is not pregnant. Washington, DC: Family Health International; 2006 [cited 2007 May 30]. Available from: http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/servdelivery/checklists/pregnancy/index.htm.
11. Sellors JW, Winkler JL, Kreysar DF. Illumination, optics, and clinical performance of a hand-held magnified visual inspection device (AviScope): a comparison with colposcopy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 37 Suppl 3:S160-S166.
12. Sankaranarayanan R, Wesley RS. A practical manual on visual screening for cervical neoplasia. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003.
13. Sellors J, Camacho CK, Bingham A, Winkler J. Course in visual methods for cervical cancer screening: visual inspection with acetic acid and Lugol's iodine [CD-ROM]. Seattle: PATH; 2004.
14. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Access 2000. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation; 2000.
15. StataCorp LP. Stata: Data analysis and statistical software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2004.
16. Perez-Cruz E, Winkler JL, Velasco-Mondragon E, Salmeron-Castro J, Garcia F, Davis-Tsu V, et al. [Screening and follow-up for cervical cancer prevention in rural Mexico using visual inspection]. Salud Publica Mex 2005; 47(1):39-48.
17. Sankaranarayanan R, Shastri SS, Basu P, Mahe C, Mandal R, Amin G, et al. The role of low-level magnification in visual inspection with acetic acid for the early detection of cervical neoplasia. Cancer Detect Prev 2004; 28(5):345-351.
18. Shastri SS, Dinshaw K, Amin G, Goswami S, Patil S, Chinoy R, et al. Concurrent evaluation of visual, cytological and HPV testing as screening methods for the early detection of cervical neoplasia in Mumbai, India. Bull World Health Organ 2005; 83(3):186-194.
19. Rodriguez AC, Morera LA, Bratti C, Herrero R, Cox JT, Morales J, et al. Performance of direct visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid and magnification in a previously screened population. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2004; 8(2):132-138.
20. Ngelangel CA, Limson GM, Cordero CP, Abelardo AD, Avila JM, Festin MR. Acetic-acid guided visual inspection vs. cytology-based screening for cervical cancer in the Philippines. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 83(2):141-150.
21. Blumenthal PD, Lauterbach M, Sellors JW, Sankaranarayanan R. Training for cervical cancer prevention programs in low-resource settings: focus on visual inspection with acetic acid and cryotherapy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89 Suppl 2:S30-S37.
22. Pollack AE, Tsu VD. Preventing cervical cancer in low-resource settings: building a case for the possible. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89 Suppl 2:S1-S3.
23. Tsu VD, Pollack AE. Preventing cervical cancer in low-resource settings: how far have we come and what does the future hold? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89 Suppl 2:S55-S59.
24. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 2001; 285(24):3107-3115.
25. Bingham A, Bishop A, Coffey P, Winkler J, Bradley J, Dzuba I, et al. Factors affecting utilization of cervical cancer prevention services in low-resource settings. Salud Publica Mex 2003; 45 Suppl. 3:S408-S416.