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

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™...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	J E Salazar-Campos [verfasserIn] A González-Enciso [verfasserIn] R Díaz-Molina [verfasserIn] M E Lara-Hernández [verfasserIn] J Coronel-Martínez [verfasserIn] C Pérez-Plasencia [verfasserIn] D Cantú de León [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Journal of Cytology - Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008, 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:35 ; year:2018 ; number:3 ; pages:143-148

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ077504011

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ077504011
003	DE-627
005	20230309152221.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ077504011
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a QH573-671
100	0		\|a J E Salazar-Campos \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a 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.
650		4	\|a Cervicouterine cancer
650		4	\|a conventional cytology
650		4	\|a opto-electronic device
650		4	\|a screening
650		4	\|a TruScreen™
653		0	\|a Cytology
700	0		\|a A González-Enciso \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a R Díaz-Molina \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a M E Lara-Hernández \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a J Coronel-Martínez \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a C Pérez-Plasencia \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a D Cantú de León \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Journal of Cytology \|d Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008 \|g 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 \|w (DE-627)561321051 \|w (DE-600)2418980-7 \|x 09745165 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:35 \|g year:2018 \|g number:3 \|g pages:143-148
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 35 \|j 2018 \|e 3 \|h 143-148

Indexfelder

author_variant	j e s c jesc a g e age r d m rdm m e l h melh j c m jcm c p p cpp d c d l dcdl
matchkey_str	article:09745165:2018----::evcueieacrcenntucensovnin
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
callnumber-subject-code	QH
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ077504011 (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH573-671 J E Salazar-Campos verfasserin aut Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™ Cytology A González-Enciso verfasserin aut R Díaz-Molina verfasserin aut M E Lara-Hernández verfasserin aut J Coronel-Martínez verfasserin aut C Pérez-Plasencia verfasserin aut D Cantú de León verfasserin aut In Journal of Cytology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 (DE-627)561321051 (DE-600)2418980-7 09745165 nnns volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148 https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 kostenfrei http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 35 2018 3 143-148
spelling	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ077504011 (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH573-671 J E Salazar-Campos verfasserin aut Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™ Cytology A González-Enciso verfasserin aut R Díaz-Molina verfasserin aut M E Lara-Hernández verfasserin aut J Coronel-Martínez verfasserin aut C Pérez-Plasencia verfasserin aut D Cantú de León verfasserin aut In Journal of Cytology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 (DE-627)561321051 (DE-600)2418980-7 09745165 nnns volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148 https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 kostenfrei http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 35 2018 3 143-148
allfields_unstemmed	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ077504011 (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH573-671 J E Salazar-Campos verfasserin aut Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™ Cytology A González-Enciso verfasserin aut R Díaz-Molina verfasserin aut M E Lara-Hernández verfasserin aut J Coronel-Martínez verfasserin aut C Pérez-Plasencia verfasserin aut D Cantú de León verfasserin aut In Journal of Cytology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 (DE-627)561321051 (DE-600)2418980-7 09745165 nnns volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148 https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 kostenfrei http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 35 2018 3 143-148
allfieldsGer	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ077504011 (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH573-671 J E Salazar-Campos verfasserin aut Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™ Cytology A González-Enciso verfasserin aut R Díaz-Molina verfasserin aut M E Lara-Hernández verfasserin aut J Coronel-Martínez verfasserin aut C Pérez-Plasencia verfasserin aut D Cantú de León verfasserin aut In Journal of Cytology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 (DE-627)561321051 (DE-600)2418980-7 09745165 nnns volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148 https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 kostenfrei http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 35 2018 3 143-148
allfieldsSound	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 doi (DE-627)DOAJ077504011 (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH573-671 J E Salazar-Campos verfasserin aut Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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. Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™ Cytology A González-Enciso verfasserin aut R Díaz-Molina verfasserin aut M E Lara-Hernández verfasserin aut J Coronel-Martínez verfasserin aut C Pérez-Plasencia verfasserin aut D Cantú de León verfasserin aut In Journal of Cytology Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 (DE-627)561321051 (DE-600)2418980-7 09745165 nnns volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148 https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 kostenfrei http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 35 2018 3 143-148
language	English
source	In Journal of Cytology 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148
sourceStr	In Journal of Cytology 35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148 volume:35 year:2018 number:3 pages:143-148
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™ Cytology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Journal of Cytology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	J E Salazar-Campos @@aut@@ A González-Enciso @@aut@@ R Díaz-Molina @@aut@@ M E Lara-Hernández @@aut@@ J Coronel-Martínez @@aut@@ C Pérez-Plasencia @@aut@@ D Cantú de León @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	561321051
id	DOAJ077504011
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ077504011</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309152221.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ077504011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH573-671</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">J E Salazar-Campos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cervicouterine cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">conventional cytology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">opto-electronic device</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">TruScreen™</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Cytology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A González-Enciso</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">R Díaz-Molina</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M E Lara-Hernández</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">J Coronel-Martínez</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C Pérez-Plasencia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">D Cantú de León</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Cytology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)561321051</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2418980-7</subfield><subfield code="x">09745165</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:35</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:143-148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">35</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">143-148</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	Q - Science
author	J E Salazar-Campos
spellingShingle	J E Salazar-Campos misc QH573-671 misc Cervicouterine cancer misc conventional cytology misc opto-electronic device misc screening misc TruScreen™ misc Cytology Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study
authorStr	J E Salazar-Campos
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)561321051
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	QH573-671
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	09745165
topic_title	QH573-671 Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study Cervicouterine cancer conventional cytology opto-electronic device screening TruScreen™
topic	misc QH573-671 misc Cervicouterine cancer misc conventional cytology misc opto-electronic device misc screening misc TruScreen™ misc Cytology
topic_unstemmed	misc QH573-671 misc Cervicouterine cancer misc conventional cytology misc opto-electronic device misc screening misc TruScreen™ misc Cytology
topic_browse	misc QH573-671 misc Cervicouterine cancer misc conventional cytology misc opto-electronic device misc screening misc TruScreen™ misc Cytology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Journal of Cytology
hierarchy_parent_id	561321051
hierarchy_top_title	Journal of Cytology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)561321051 (DE-600)2418980-7
title	Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ077504011 (DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6
title_full	Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study
author_sort	J E Salazar-Campos
journal	Journal of Cytology
journalStr	Journal of Cytology
callnumber-first-code	Q
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	143
author_browse	J E Salazar-Campos A González-Enciso R Díaz-Molina M E Lara-Hernández J Coronel-Martínez C Pérez-Plasencia D Cantú de León
container_volume	35
class	QH573-671
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	J E Salazar-Campos
doi_str_mv	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	cervicouterine cancer screening – truscreen™ vs. conventional cytology: pilot study
callnumber	QH573-671
title_auth	Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study
abstract	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.
abstractGer	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.
abstract_unstemmed	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.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	3
title_short	Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study
url	https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17 https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6 http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371
remote_bool	true
author2	A González-Enciso R Díaz-Molina M E Lara-Hernández J Coronel-Martínez C Pérez-Plasencia D Cantú de León
author2Str	A González-Enciso R Díaz-Molina M E Lara-Hernández J Coronel-Martínez C Pérez-Plasencia D Cantú de León
ppnlink	561321051
callnumber-subject	QH - Natural History and Biology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17
callnumber-a	QH573-671
up_date	2024-07-04T01:28:40.254Z
_version_	1803609985788149760
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ077504011</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230309152221.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ077504011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH573-671</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">J E Salazar-Campos</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Cervicouterine cancer screening – TruScreen™ vs. conventional cytology: Pilot study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Cervicouterine cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">conventional cytology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">opto-electronic device</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">screening</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">TruScreen™</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Cytology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A González-Enciso</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">R Díaz-Molina</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">M E Lara-Hernández</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">J Coronel-Martínez</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">C Pérez-Plasencia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">D Cantú de León</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Cytology</subfield><subfield code="d">Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">35(2018), 3, Seite 143-148</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)561321051</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2418980-7</subfield><subfield code="x">09745165</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:35</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:143-148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.4103/JOC.JOC_111_17</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c14d1ba1c62f46e3bfca54f890872bd6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.jcytol.org/article.asp?issn=0970-9371;year=2018;volume=35;issue=3;spage=143;epage=148;aulast=Salazar-Campos</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/0970-9371</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">35</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">143-148</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4017725

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

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

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?