Visual Inspection after Acetic Acid (Via) as an Alternative Screening Tool for Cancer CervixKhalid Abd Aziz Mohamad*, Ahmed Samy Saad, Ahmed Walid Anwar Murad and Ahmed Altraigy
Lecturer of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Benha Faculty of Medicine and Benha University Hospital, Benha University, El Qulyobia Governorate, Benha City, El Sadat Street, Egypt
- *Corresponding Author:
- Khalid abd Aziz Mohamad
Lecturer of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Benha Faculty of Medicine and Benha University Hospital
Benha University, El Qulyobia Governorate, Benha City
El Sadat Street, Egypt
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: October 16, 2015; Accepted Date: October 28, 2015; Published Date: November 10, 2015
Citation: Mohamad KAA, Saad AS, Murad AWA, Altraigy A (2015) Visual Inspection after Acetic Acid (Via) as an Alternative Screening Tool for Cancer Cervix. Gynecol Obstet (Sunnyvale) 5:336. doi: 10.4172/2161-0932.1000336
Copyright: © 2015 Mohamad KAA, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the role of visual inspection with acetic acid VIA as an alternative cost effective tool to Pap smear in screening for cancer cervix in low resource settings.
Material and methods: 3298 women attended the obstetrics and gynecology Department in Benha University Hospital from May 2012 till August 2015 were screened by Pap smear and VIA. Colposcopy was done for all women. Positive cases on any screening test were subjected to cervical biopsy. All women with a positive VIA (200 including 124 Pap +ve), abnormal Cytology (40 were VIA -ve), or those with abnormal colposcopy (70 were Pap -ve and VIA -ve)) were subjected to cervical biopsy and were included in our study. Thus a total of 310 cases from whom cervical biopsy were taken were included.
Results: Of the women screened, VIA was positive in 200 (6%) and 164 (5%) were positive on Papanicolaou smear. Cervical biopsy was done on 310 cases. 191 (62%) biopsies were positive and 119 (38%) were negative. Of the 191 positive biopsies there were 87 CIN I, 59 CIN II, 29 CIN III and 16 invasive carcinoma. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of VIA were 84%, 67%, 80.5% and 73% respectively. While the Pap smears had a sensitivity of 72%, specificity of 78%, and positive predictive value of 84% and negative predictive value of 64%.
Conclusion: VIA has the advantage of easy learning, inexpensiveness, high sensitivity in comparison to Pap smear and immediate availability to assess results. Thus, VIA represents a good method of cervical cancer screening in many parts of the world especially in poorly resourced locations.