Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Association of Swede Score and 2011 IFCPC Nomenclature in Women with Abnormal Cytology
DOI: s-0042-1751074 - volume 44 - 2022
Priscila Loyola Campos, Isabel Cristina Chulvis do Val Guimarães, Susana Cristina Aidé Viviani Fialho, Caroline Alves Oliveira Martins, Fabiana Resende Rodrigues, Luiz Guilhermo Coca Velarde, Daniela da Silva Alves Monteiro
Abstract
Objective
To assess the association between two colposcopic indices, the Swede score and the 2011 International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC) Nomenclature as well as to determine the efficacy of the Swede score with cutoffs of 7 and 8.
Methods
In the present cross-sectional pilot study, 34 women who had at least 1 colposcopy-directed biopsy due to abnormal cytology were enrolled. The colposcopic findings were scored by both the Swede score and the 2011 IFCPC Nomenclature and were compared with each other. The Kappa coefficient and the McNemar test were used. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (NPV and PPV, respectively) were calculated, as well as the effectiveness with cutoffs of 7 and 8 in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasm (CIN) 2+ when using the Swede score.
Results
The correlation between the 2 colposcopic indices was 79.41%. The Kappa coefficient and the McNemar p-value were 0.55 and 0.37, respectively. The IFCPC Nomenclature had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 85.71, 55.00, 67.64, 57.14, and 84.61%, respectively. The Swede score had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 100, 63.15, 79.41, 68.18, and 100%, respectively. A Swede score cutoff of 7 for CIN 2+ detection had a specificity of 94.73%, while with a cutoff of 8 it increased to 100%. The sensitivity for both values was 60%. The PPV and NPV for cutoffs of 7 and 8 were 90 and 75 and 100 and 76%, respectively.
Conclusion
Although both colposcopic indices have good reproducibility, the Swede score showed greater accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in identifying CIN 2 + , especially when using a cutoff of 8.
Full Text
Objective
To assess the association between two colposcopic indices, the Swede score and the 2011 International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC) Nomenclature as well as to determine the efficacy of the Swede score with cutoffs of 7 and 8.
Methods
In the present cross-sectional pilot study, 34 women who had at least 1 colposcopy-directed biopsy due to abnormal cytology were enrolled. The colposcopic findings were scored by both the Swede score and the 2011 IFCPC Nomenclature and were compared with each other. The Kappa coefficient and the McNemar test were used. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (NPV and PPV, respectively) were calculated, as well as the effectiveness with cutoffs of 7 and 8 in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasm (CIN) 2+ when using the Swede score.
Results
The correlation between the 2 colposcopic indices was 79.41%. The Kappa coefficient and the McNemar p-value were 0.55 and 0.37, respectively. The IFCPC Nomenclature had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 85.71, 55.00, 67.64, 57.14, and 84.61%, respectively. The Swede score had sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 100, 63.15, 79.41, 68.18, and 100%, respectively. A Swede score cutoff of 7 for CIN 2+ detection had a specificity of 94.73%, while with a cutoff of 8 it increased to 100%. The sensitivity for both values was 60%. The PPV and NPV for cutoffs of 7 and 8 were 90 and 75 and 100 and 76%, respectively.
Conclusion
Although both colposcopic indices have good reproducibility, the Swede score showed greater accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in identifying CIN 2 + , especially when using a cutoff of 8.
References
1 Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Lauversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(03):209-249
2 Bruni L, Diaz M, Castellsagué X, Ferrer E, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S. Cervical human papillomavirus prevalence in 5 continents: meta-analysis of 1 million women with normal cytological findings. J Infect Dis. 2010;202(12):1789-1799
3 Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, Killackey M, Kulasigam SL, Cain JM. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012;16(03):175-204
4 . . Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero. 2016;:-
5 Schiffman M, Wentzensen N, Wacholder S, Kinney W, Gage JC, Castle PE. Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(05):368-383
6 Ferris DG, Litaker M. Interobserver agreement for colposcopy quality control using digitized colposcopic images during the ALTS trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2005;9(01):29-35
7 Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P, Girardi F, Haefner H, Menton M. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(01):166-172
8 Quaas J, Reich O, Frey Tirri B, Küppers V. Explanation and Use of the Colposcopy Terminology of the IFCPC (International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy) Rio 2011. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73(09):904-907
9 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(10):1013-1017
10 . . Swede Score [Internet]. 2020;:-
11 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 Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010;14(04):301-305
12 Li Y, Duan X, Sui L, Xu F, Xu S, Zhang H. Closer to a uniform language in colposcopy: study on the potential application of 2011 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy terminology in clinical practice. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:8984516-8984516
13 Cooper DB, Goyal M. . StatPearls [Internet]. 2020;:-
14 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(01):159-174
15 Fan A, Wang C, Zhang L, Yan Y, Han C, Xue F. Diagnostic value of the 2011 International federation for cervical pathology and colposcopy terminology in predicting cervical lesions. Oncotarget. 2018;9(10):9166-9176
16 Kushwah S, Kushwah B. Correlation of two colposcopic indices for predicting premalignant lesions of cervix. J Midlife Health. 2017;8(03):118-123
17 Ebisch RM, Rovers MM, Bosgraaf RP, van der Pluijm-Schouten HW, Melchers WJG. Evidence supporting see-and-treat management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123(01):59-66
18 Bedell SL, Goldstein LS, Goldstein AR, Goldstein AT. Cervical cancer screening: past, present and future. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8(01):28-37