Abstract
Objective
To compare the performance of cytology, colposcopy and human papillomavirus in detecting cervical intraepithelial lesions in women with systemic lupus erythematosus.
Methods
Papanicolaou smears (normal, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), colposcopy findings, human papillomavirus and co-testing (Papanicolaou smear + human papillomavirus) were compared with cervical biopsy findings in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and false-negative rates, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios of cytologic smears, colposcopy findings, human papillomavirus and co-testing were determined.
Results
Cytology and colposcopy were performed in 170 systemic lupus erythematosus women (mean age and disease duration of 43.7±12.1 years and 9.7±5.3 years, respectively) and biopsies were performed in 55 patients (38.2% normal, 60.0% low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and 1.8% high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of cytology were 14.7% (95% confidence interval 5.5–31.8%), 95.2% (95% confidence interval 74.1–99.7%), 83.3% (95% confidence interval 36.4–99.1%) and 40.8% (95% confidence interval 27.3–55.7%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of colposcopy findings were 100.0% (95% confidence interval 87.3–100.0%), 0.0% (95% confidence interval 0.0–19.2%) and 61.8% (95% confidence interval 47.7–74.2%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of co-testing were 8.0% (95% confidence interval 1.3–27.5%) and 100.0% (95% confidence interval 71.6–100.0%). The positive predictive value and negative predictive values were 100.0% (95% confidence interval 19.7–100.0%) and 36.1% (95% confidence interval 33.5–38.8%), respectively.
Conclusions
In systemic lupus erythematosus patients, colposcopy impressions were more sensitive than cytology and co-testing. However, cytology and co-testing were the most specific tests. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.