title: A multicentre study comparing cervicography and cytology in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate in a multicentre setting the performance of cervicography compared with cytology for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective comparative multicentre study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three hospitals with outpatient gynaecology clinics and three cancer screening clinics.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cervical cytology and cervicography were performed on 5724 women. If one or both tests showed an abnormality suggestive of at least a low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, a colposcopy with directed biopsy was carried out. Cervicograms were evaluated by four experienced 'senior' assessors and by ten new 'junior' assessors.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Results were fully analysed for 5192 women (91%). A cervical biopsy was carried out on 228 women and this confirmed a true positive lesion in 116 cases (incidence rate: 2.2%). Of these, 72 cases (62.1%) were detected by cervicography and 64 (55.2%) by cytology. This difference was not statistically significant (McNemar: P=0.475). Only 20 cases of CIN (17%) were concordantly detected by both tests. Senior assessors performed significantly better with a detection capacity of 80.6% compared to a detection capacity of 56.6% for the junior assessors (chi2 test: P=0.034).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Cervicography must be considered as a complementary test to cytology. Overall detection of CIN is improved, but this is mainly due to the detection of more low grade lesions. The lower sensitivity and specificity in high grade lesions compared with cervical cytology is the main limitation of cervicography in screening for CIN. An important finding was that the performance of cervicography was highly dependent on the assessors' experience.
authors.affiliation: Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Colposcopy Clinic, Akademisch Ziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium.
authors.forename: P h
authors.initials: Ph
authors.lastname: De Sutter
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Coibion
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Vosse
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Hertens
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Huet
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Wesling
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Wayembergh
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bourdon
authors.forename: P h
authors.initials: Ph
authors.lastname: Autier
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001706:Biopsy; D003127:Colposcopy; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods; D008875:Middle Aged; D010781:Photography; D011247:Pregnancy; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology; D002578:Uterine Cervical Dysplasia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology