The feasibilities of TruScreen for primary cervical cancer screening: a self-controlled study

Clinical evaluation of a real-time optoelectronic device in cervical cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

Early screening and intervention are crucial for the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer. TruScreen is a real-time, intelligent, pathological diagnostic technology designed for cervical cancer screening. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical value of TruScreen in screening for cervical lesions.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 458 women aged between 25 and 65 years were recruited to receive cervical cancer screening, including human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, cytological testing using the ThinPrep cytology test (TCT), and TruScreen from December 2018 to January 2020. The clinical performance of TruScreen, alone and in combination with HPV testing, was evaluated to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+ or CIN3+).

RESULTS

For detection of CIN2+, the sensitivity and specificity of TruScreen were 83.78% and 78.86%, respectively. The specificity of TruScreen was significantly higher than those of HPV testing (50.59%, P < 0.001) and TCT (55.58%, P < 0.001). In high-risk HPV-positive women, the specificity of HPV testing combined with TruScreen was significantly higher than that of HPV testing combined with TCT (50% vs 39.9%, P = 0.004). The sensitivity of HPV testing combined with TruScreen was comparable to that of HPV testing combined with TCT (93.94% vs 87.88%, P = 0.625). Similar patterns were also observed for CIN3+ cases.

CONCLUSION

TruScreen has the potential for screening high-grade cervical precancerous lesions and may replace cytological tests as a cervical cancer screening method in China to avoid subjectivity in the interpretation of cytological tests and requirements by pathologists.

Evaluation of a real-time optoelectronic method in the diagnostics of CIN over four years of observations

Cervical cancer is considered to be particularly amenable to prevention and highly treatable in its early stages. The real-time optoelectronic method of cervix examination seemed to be very promising in the detection of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions and demonstrated relatively good efficacy. Although this method was introduced into clinics almost 10 years ago, it has not found its place in diagnostic schemes. At the moment, cytological smears and HPV detection with genotyping are still essential. TruScreen seems to be a slightly forgotten test. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and accuracy of TruScreen in detecting cervical pathology: CIN and cervical cancer confirmed with a histopathological diagnosis in comparison with other methods–cytology and colposcopy over four years of observations. The study was conducted on 130 women with abnormal Pap smear results. We can conclude that a real-time optoelectronic method like TruScreen can be useful as an effective initial cervical cancer screening in developing countries, possibly in combination with other methods. The combination of cytology and TruScreen examination may help clinicians to take decision about the next diagnostics steps (e.g. colposcopy) and contribute to better primary screening for cervical cancer.

Comparison of the detection rate of cervical lesion with TruScreen, LBC test and HPV test: A Real-world study based on population screening of cervical cancer in rural areas of China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

China carries a heavy burden of cervical cancer and has an alarmingly low cervical cancer screening rate. In order to achieve the goal of cervical cancer elimination, there is an urgent need for suitable methods and strategies in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total 9972 woman who received cervical cancer screening services of National Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Rural Areas (NCCSPRA) in 8 project counties participated in this study. TruScreen, HPV test and LBC test were performed in all participants. A total of 1945women had one or more than one positive or abnormal screening results of the above three screening tests subsequently received colposcopy. The detection rate of CIN2+ between the three tests were compared.

RESULTS

No matter what kind of screening method is used, the CIN2+ detection rate in the eastern regions was much higher than that in the central and western regions. The total detection rate of CIN2+ in HPV group was highest (0.73%), following in LBC group (0.44%) and TS group (0.31%). There was statistically significant difference in the total detection rate of CIN2+ between TS and HPV groups, LBC and HPV groups, respectively. There was no statistical difference in the total detection rate of CIN2+ between TS and LBC screening groups. Moreover, except for the eastern regions, there was no statistical difference in the detection rate of CIN2+ between TS group and the other two groups in central and western regions.

CONCLUSION

If it can meet the requirements of the laboratory and personnel, HPV test seems to be the preferred method for cervical cancer screening in rural areas of China. The characteristics of minimal training requirements, simple operation, real-time results obtained without the collection of cervical cell samples and the help of laboratory equipment and cytologists of TS make it ideal for cervical cancer screening in low-resource regions.

The diagnostic accuracy of a real-time optoelectronic device in cervical cancer screening: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a real-time optoelectronic device (TruScreen) for uterine cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

On the basis of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (the PRISMA statement) we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, and WanFang Data using medical subject headings (MeSH) and text words. Title/abstract screening, full text check, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (with the QUADAS-2 tool) were performed by 2 reviewers independently. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), the summary receiver operator characteristic curve, and the area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed with Meta-DiSc software. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran's Q test and I, meta-regression was conducted based on patient type, and the possibility of publication bias was evaluated using Deeks funnel plot in Stata software.

RESULTS

Of 293 publications, nine met our inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2730 patients and 567 cervical intraepithelial neoplasias. The pooled test characteristics for the TruScreen were as follows: sensitivity 76% (95% CI, 73-80%), specificity 69% (95% CI, 67%-71%), PLR 2.30 (95% CI, 1.59-3.33), and NLR 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23-0.51). The corresponding pooled DOR was 7.03 (95% CI, 3.40-14.55). The AUC was 0.7859 (Q = 0.7236).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic accuracy of the TruScreen device is moderately good. The study findings are based on Chinese studies only and could not be generalized to other populations.

Feasibility study of a human papillomavirus E6 and E7 oncoprotein test for the diagnosis of cervical precancer and cancer

Objective

To evaluate the clinical value of human papillomavirus (HPV) E6 and E7 oncoprotein (HPV E6/E7) detection in the early screening of cervical cancer.

Methods

This prospective study evaluated all patients with suspected cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) as identified by the presence of at least one positive indicator from a ThinPrep cytologic test (TCT) and/or a Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) HPV DNA test. The levels of E6/E7 oncoproteins were determined using Western blot analysis. The diagnostic value of the HPV E6/E7 protein assay was compared with the clinical diagnosis from TCT, HC2 and the gold standard of cervical biopsy histology.

Results

A total of 450 patients were enrolled in the study and based on histological findings, 102 patients were diagnosed with CIN1 (22.7%), 241 with CIN2 (53.6%), 96 with CIN3 (21.3%) and 11 with squamous cell carcinoma (2.4%). For a diagnosis of CIN2+, although the sensitivity of the HPV E6/E7 assay was lower than HC2 (65.5% versus 96.6%, respectively), the specificity was higher (38.2% versus 5.9%, respectively). The sensitivity of the HPV E6/E7 assay was higher than TCT (65.5% versus 36.2%, respectively).

Conclusion

Measuring HPV E6/E7 oncoprotein levels is a potential new biomarker for HPV type 16.

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™ 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.

Alternative Colposcopy Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic value of alternative (digital) colposcopy techniques for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse in a colposcopy population.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception up to January 11, 2016, for studies that evaluated the diagnostic value of alternative (digital) colposcopy techniques.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were: 1) an alternative (digital) colposcopy technique was used in a colposcopy population; 2) a histologic outcome was reported, classified as CIN, differentiating between mild dysplasia or less (CIN 1 or less), and moderate dysplasia or worse (CIN 2 or greater); 3) the entire cervix was scanned at once or a per-woman analysis was performed; 4) no other topical application than acetic acid and Lugol's solution was used; 5) at least three eligible studies had to be available within a single technique; and 6) studies obtained research ethics approval. Language was restricted to English.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified articles. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. We found six studies on fluorescence and reflectance spectroscopy, including 2,530 women, with a pooled sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89-95%) and specificity of 62% (95% CI 47-76%). Four studies on dynamic spectral imaging were found including 1,173 women with a pooled sensitivity of 69% (95% CI 48-85%) and specificity of 83% (95% CI 76-88%). We found three studies on optical coherence tomography including 693 women with a pooled sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 32-64%) and specificity of 77% (95% CI 52-91%). Previously published conventional colposcopy results showed a sensitivity of 61% (95% CI 58-63%) and a specificity of 85% (95% CI 83-86%).

CONCLUSION

Alternative (digital) colposcopy techniques may result in increased sensitivity and specificity, but no recommendation for introduction in clinical practice can be made yet.

Awareness, Interest, and Preferences of Primary Care Providers in Using Point-of-Care Cancer Screening Technology

Well-developed point-of-care (POC) cancer screening tools have the potential to provide better cancer care to patients in both developed and developing countries. However, new medical technology will not be adopted by medical providers unless it addresses a population’s existing needs and end-users’ preferences. The goals of our study were to assess primary care providers’ level of awareness, interest, and preferences in using POC cancer screening technology in their practice and to provide guidelines to biomedical engineers for future POC technology development. A total of 350 primary care providers completed a one-time self-administered online survey, which took approximately 10 minutes to complete. A $50 Amazon gift card was given as an honorarium for the first 100 respondents to encourage participation. The description of POC cancer screening technology was provided in the beginning of the survey to ensure all participants had a basic understanding of what constitutes POC technology. More than half of the participants (57%) stated that they heard of the term “POC technology” for the first time when they took the survey. However, almost all of the participants (97%) stated they were either “very interested” (68%) or “somewhat interested” (29%) in using POC cancer screening technology in their practice. Demographic characteristics such as the length of being in the practice of medicine, the percentage of patients on Medicaid, and the average number of patients per day were not shown to be associated with the level of interest in using POC. These data show that there is a great interest in POC cancer screening technology utilization among this population of primary care providers and vast room for future investigations to further understand the interest and preferences in using POC cancer technology in practice. Ensuring that the benefits of new technology outweigh the costs will maximize the likelihood it will be used by medical providers and patients.

Efficacy of a real time optoelectronic device (TruScreen™) in detecting cervical intraepithelial pathologies: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of TruScreen™ (an objective optoelectronic cervical screening device) in improving the sensitivity of cervical screening programs either alone or in combination with Papanicolaou (PAP) smear or human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA screening.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our study was performed in 285 patients with abnormal Pap test results. TruScreen™ and HPV screening methods were performed in all participants. Consistency and differences between the tests were compared with cervical biopsy results.

RESULTS

TruScreen™ was found to be an approach method in the determination of cervical pathologies (ROC curve area underlined=0.606) and with an 89.5% negative predictive value. HPV screening remains a counterpart to TruScreen™ with a 0.620 area underlined in the ROC curve and an 83% negative predictive value.

CONCLUSION

As determined in our study, TruScreen™ with a sensitivity of 86.1% can be used as a screening test with instant and not professional dependent results for cervical cancer screening. Avoiding from subjectivity in interpretation of Pap smears and requirement for pathologists, TruScreen™ can be a used for cervical cancer screening especially in countries with a low socio-economic status. The combination of TruScreen™ and HPV screening was not able to demonstrate a significant rise of effectiveness in screening.