Polarized Light Colposcopy Compared with Standard Colposcopy

Daron G. Ferris, Wendy Shulay Guevara Condorhuaman, Jennifer L. Waller, Lynn Allmond, Angela Goebel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the potential benefits of polarized light colposcopy compared with standard colposcopy examinations in the evaluation of women with abnormal cervical cytology. Materials and Methods: Polarized and standard colposcopy examinations were performed on 330 subjects. Respective images and biopsy annotations were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity; differences in the severity of cervical neoplasia; agreement of colposcopy impression, biopsy intent, and biopsy site; and differences in the number of biopsies were determined using the ROC, Bowker's test of symmetry, kappa statistic, and paired t test, respectively. Results: The sensitivity and specificity for a lesion being seen with nonpolarized light and polarized light colposcopy were 96.8% and 64.5%, and 96.8% and 64.9%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of the lesion being seen between nonpolarized (80.7) and polarized (80.9) colposcopy. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of intent to biopsy between nonpolarized (80.2) and polarized colposcopy (78.8). The agreement of cervical histopathology and colposcopy impression for nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy were 0.986 and 0.952, respectively. There was no significant difference between nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy in the mean number of lesions seen or number of sites intended to biopsy. Conclusions: Polarized light colposcopy was not useful as an adjunct to conventional colposcopy in this study. Further research needs to be performed to determine the overall utility of polarized light colposcopy in clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)234-238
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 26 2015

Fingerprint

Colposcopy
Light
Biopsy
Sensitivity and Specificity
Cell Biology

Keywords

  • cervical neoplasia
  • colposcopy
  • colposcopy adjunct
  • cross polarization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Polarized Light Colposcopy Compared with Standard Colposcopy. / Ferris, Daron G.; Guevara Condorhuaman, Wendy Shulay; Waller, Jennifer L.; Allmond, Lynn; Goebel, Angela.

In: Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, Vol. 19, No. 3, 26.07.2015, p. 234-238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ferris, Daron G. ; Guevara Condorhuaman, Wendy Shulay ; Waller, Jennifer L. ; Allmond, Lynn ; Goebel, Angela. / Polarized Light Colposcopy Compared with Standard Colposcopy. In: Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2015 ; Vol. 19, No. 3. pp. 234-238.
@article{8c5ae50968e5441da78d72b33a9d0a8e,
title = "Polarized Light Colposcopy Compared with Standard Colposcopy",
abstract = "Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the potential benefits of polarized light colposcopy compared with standard colposcopy examinations in the evaluation of women with abnormal cervical cytology. Materials and Methods: Polarized and standard colposcopy examinations were performed on 330 subjects. Respective images and biopsy annotations were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity; differences in the severity of cervical neoplasia; agreement of colposcopy impression, biopsy intent, and biopsy site; and differences in the number of biopsies were determined using the ROC, Bowker's test of symmetry, kappa statistic, and paired t test, respectively. Results: The sensitivity and specificity for a lesion being seen with nonpolarized light and polarized light colposcopy were 96.8{\%} and 64.5{\%}, and 96.8{\%} and 64.9{\%}, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of the lesion being seen between nonpolarized (80.7) and polarized (80.9) colposcopy. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of intent to biopsy between nonpolarized (80.2) and polarized colposcopy (78.8). The agreement of cervical histopathology and colposcopy impression for nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy were 0.986 and 0.952, respectively. There was no significant difference between nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy in the mean number of lesions seen or number of sites intended to biopsy. Conclusions: Polarized light colposcopy was not useful as an adjunct to conventional colposcopy in this study. Further research needs to be performed to determine the overall utility of polarized light colposcopy in clinical practice.",
keywords = "cervical neoplasia, colposcopy, colposcopy adjunct, cross polarization",
author = "Ferris, {Daron G.} and {Guevara Condorhuaman}, {Wendy Shulay} and Waller, {Jennifer L.} and Lynn Allmond and Angela Goebel",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "26",
doi = "10.1097/LGT.0000000000000111",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "234--238",
journal = "Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease",
issn = "1089-2591",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Polarized Light Colposcopy Compared with Standard Colposcopy

AU - Ferris, Daron G.

AU - Guevara Condorhuaman, Wendy Shulay

AU - Waller, Jennifer L.

AU - Allmond, Lynn

AU - Goebel, Angela

PY - 2015/7/26

Y1 - 2015/7/26

N2 - Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the potential benefits of polarized light colposcopy compared with standard colposcopy examinations in the evaluation of women with abnormal cervical cytology. Materials and Methods: Polarized and standard colposcopy examinations were performed on 330 subjects. Respective images and biopsy annotations were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity; differences in the severity of cervical neoplasia; agreement of colposcopy impression, biopsy intent, and biopsy site; and differences in the number of biopsies were determined using the ROC, Bowker's test of symmetry, kappa statistic, and paired t test, respectively. Results: The sensitivity and specificity for a lesion being seen with nonpolarized light and polarized light colposcopy were 96.8% and 64.5%, and 96.8% and 64.9%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of the lesion being seen between nonpolarized (80.7) and polarized (80.9) colposcopy. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of intent to biopsy between nonpolarized (80.2) and polarized colposcopy (78.8). The agreement of cervical histopathology and colposcopy impression for nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy were 0.986 and 0.952, respectively. There was no significant difference between nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy in the mean number of lesions seen or number of sites intended to biopsy. Conclusions: Polarized light colposcopy was not useful as an adjunct to conventional colposcopy in this study. Further research needs to be performed to determine the overall utility of polarized light colposcopy in clinical practice.

AB - Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the potential benefits of polarized light colposcopy compared with standard colposcopy examinations in the evaluation of women with abnormal cervical cytology. Materials and Methods: Polarized and standard colposcopy examinations were performed on 330 subjects. Respective images and biopsy annotations were obtained. Sensitivity and specificity; differences in the severity of cervical neoplasia; agreement of colposcopy impression, biopsy intent, and biopsy site; and differences in the number of biopsies were determined using the ROC, Bowker's test of symmetry, kappa statistic, and paired t test, respectively. Results: The sensitivity and specificity for a lesion being seen with nonpolarized light and polarized light colposcopy were 96.8% and 64.5%, and 96.8% and 64.9%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of the lesion being seen between nonpolarized (80.7) and polarized (80.9) colposcopy. Likewise, there was no statistically significant difference in the ROC of intent to biopsy between nonpolarized (80.2) and polarized colposcopy (78.8). The agreement of cervical histopathology and colposcopy impression for nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy were 0.986 and 0.952, respectively. There was no significant difference between nonpolarized and polarized colposcopy in the mean number of lesions seen or number of sites intended to biopsy. Conclusions: Polarized light colposcopy was not useful as an adjunct to conventional colposcopy in this study. Further research needs to be performed to determine the overall utility of polarized light colposcopy in clinical practice.

KW - cervical neoplasia

KW - colposcopy

KW - colposcopy adjunct

KW - cross polarization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937692703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937692703&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000111

DO - 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000111

M3 - Article

C2 - 25943867

AN - SCOPUS:84937692703

VL - 19

SP - 234

EP - 238

JO - Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

JF - Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

SN - 1089-2591

IS - 3

ER -