Clinical relevance of objectifying colposcopy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical value of four objective colposcopic criteria inner border, ridge sign, cuffed crypt openings and rag sign to diagnose cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), using video exoscopy and to compare it to subjective graduating signs. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of video recordings of 444 patients, referred for diagnostic colposcopy, who underwent cervical biopsies, and if indicated loop excisions. Most severe histological diagnosis was recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratios (LR) with 95% confidence interval, for CIN 2+ were calculated. RESULTS: Single biopsy, two biopsies and magnification-guided loop excision were performed in 60.8, 39.2 and 70.5% of patients, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV to detect CIN 2+ were 19.3, 99.2, 98.3 and 35.8%, for inner border sign; 53.1, 93.5, 94.7 and 47.6%, for ridge sign; 51.5, 84.9, 88.2, and 44.3%, for cuffed crypt openings, and 40.7, 96.4, 96.1 and 42.5%, for rag sign, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 26.7 and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.81, for inner border sign; 8.2 and 0.5, for ridge sign; 3.41 and 0.57 for cuffed crypt openings; and 11.3 and 0.62 for rag sign, respectively. 90% of CIN 2+ had at least one objective sign. Combination of any two objective signs significantly increased the LR of the presence of CIN 2+, and was clinically superior to any combination of graduating signs. CONCLUSION: Objective colposcopic criteria are clinically useful and significantly associated with CIN 2+.

A multicentric randomized study comparing two techniques of magnification assisted loop excision of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: video exoscopy and colposcopy.

PURPOSE: To compare loop excisions of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) under video exoscopy, or colposcopic guidance, with respect to safety and effectiveness. METHODS: Prospective multicentric randomized trial of 300 patients, undergoing loop excision for CIN 2+ either under video exoscopy (group A) or colposcope (group B) guidance. Intra- and post-operative complications, resection margins, and removed cervical volume in both groups were evaluated. RESULTS: 19.3 % of patients in video exoscopy group and 15.5 % in colposcopy group (p = 0.67) had transformation zone (TZ) 3. 45/151 (29.8 %) of group A patients and 48/149 (32.2 %) of group B patients underwent top-hat procedure, i.e., one superficial excision followed by one deeper removal of the endocervical tissue (p = 0.74). There was no difference in intra- and post-operative complications in the two groups. Positive endocervical resection margins (R0) were 9.9 % in video exoscopy group and 8.7 % in colposcopy group, respectively. Unclear endocervical resection margins (Rx) were 2.0 % in both groups. Mean total excised cervical volume was 1.20 cubic centimeter (cc³) in group A, and 1.24 cc³ in group B, respectively. Recurrent disease occurred in 2.3 % of patients at 6 months follow-up. CONCLUSION: Magnification assisted loop excision of CIN 2+ is equally effective and safe under colposcopic and video exoscopy guidance. The latter technique could potentially offer an alternative treatment of CIN 2+ lesions for doctors unfamiliar with colposcope.

Validity of the colposcopic criteria inner border sign, ridge sign, and rag sign for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of three pathognomonic criteria, inner border, ridge sign, and rag sign with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) using video exoscopy. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of video recordings of 335 patients, referred for diagnostic colposcopy, who underwent cervical biopsies, and, if indicated loop excisions, was performed. The most severe histologic diagnosis was recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios for high-grade CIN were calculated. RESULTS: In 285 patients (85%), a single colposcopy directed biopsy was taken; 50 patients (15%) underwent two biopsies. One hundred sixty-two patients (48%) underwent subsequent magnification-guided loop excision. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the inner border to detect high-grade CIN were 20%, 99%, 97.9%, and 34.8%, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 20.3 and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.81. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the ridge sign to detect high-grade CIN were 52.5%, 96.4%, 96.8%, and 46.6%, respectively. The LR+ ratio was 13.2 and the LR- ratio was 0.49. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the rag sign to detect high-grade CIN were 38.4%, 96%, 95.7%, and 40.2%, respectively. The LR+ ratio was 9.7 and the LR- ratio was 0.6. Only the ridge sign showed a correlation with young age. Presence of any two signs significantly increased the LR of the presence of high-grade CIN. CONCLUSION: The inner border, ridge sign, and the newly defined rag sign are objective, effective colposcopic signs and are significantly associated with high-grade CIN.