Journal of Cytology

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2018  |  Volume : 35  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 143--148

Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study


JE Salazar-Campos1, A González-Enciso2, R Díaz-Molina3, ME Lara-Hernández1, J Coronel-Martínez4, C Pérez-Plasencia5, D Cantú de León4 
1 Department of Gynecology, National Cancer Institute (INCan), Mexico City, Mexico
2 Subdirection of Surgery, INCan, Mexico City, Mexico
3 School of Medicine, Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC), Mexico City, Mexico
4 Clinical Research, INCan, Mexico City, Mexico
5 Laboratory of Genomics, INCan, Mexico City, Mexico

Correspondence Address:
Dr. D Cantú de León
Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Av. San Fernando No. 22, Sección XVI, Tlalpan, 14080 Ciudad de México (CDMX)
Mexico

Introduction: Cervicouterine cancer (CC) is a health problem worldwide and is the fourth most common cancer in women, with a greater proportion of individuals affected by advanced stages of the disease in developing countries. Objective: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TruScreen™ opto-electronic device vs. conventional cytology in CC screenings. Methodology: This is a prospective observational study that included individuals who presented for the first time at the Dysplasia Clinic of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from March 1 through April 30, 2016, and those referred due to abnormal conventional cytology. The patients were evaluated with the TruScreen™ device, conventional cytology, colposcopy and, if necessary, cervical biopsy. The results were analyzed by descriptive statistics as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the TruScreen™, using conventional cytology as the standard. Results: Thirty-two patients were included who met the inclusion criteria. The average age of the patients was 40 years (range, 23–61 years). For the diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial lesions, the TruScreen™ device showed a 43% sensitivity, a 92% specificity, a PPV of 60%, and a NPV of 85%, whereas evaluation via cervical biopsy exhibited a 33% sensitivity, an 86% specificity, a 33% PPV, and an 86% NPV. The Kappa agreement index of the TruScreen™ with the colposcopies was 0.70. Conclusions: TruScreen™ demonstrated low sensitivity and high specificity compared with conventional cytology, which had a high NPV.


How to cite this article:
Salazar-Campos J E, González-Enciso A, Díaz-Molina R, Lara-Hernández M E, Coronel-Martínez J, Pérez-Plasencia C, de León D C. Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study.J Cytol 2018;35:143-148


How to cite this URL:
Salazar-Campos J E, González-Enciso A, Díaz-Molina R, Lara-Hernández M E, Coronel-Martínez J, Pérez-Plasencia C, de León D C. Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study. J Cytol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2022 May 18 ];35:143-148
Available from: https://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos;type=0