Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2023
Agreement on Lesion Presence and Location at Colposcopy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lycke Kathrine Dyhr, Kalpathy-Cramer Jayashree, Jeronimo Jose, de Sanjose Silvia, Egemen Didem, Del Pino Marta, Marcus Jenna, Schiffman Mark, Hammer Anne
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE: The reproducibility and sensitivity of image-based colposcopy is low, but agreement on lesion presence and location remains to be explored. Here, we investigate the interobserver agreement on lesions on colposcopic images by evaluating and comparing marked lesions on digitized colposcopic images between colposcopists.
METHODS: Five colposcopists reviewed images from 268 colposcopic examinations. Cases were selected based on histologic diagnosis, i.e., normal/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)1 ( n = 50), CIN2 ( n = 50), CIN3 ( n = 100), adenocarcinoma in situ ( n = 53), and cancer ( n = 15). We obtained digitized time-series images every 7-10 seconds from before acetic acid application to 2 minutes after application. Colposcopists were instructed to digitally annotate all areas with acetowhitening or suspect of lesions. To estimate the agreement on lesion presence and location, we assessed the proportion of images with annotations and the proportion of images with overlapping annotated area by at least 4 (4+) colposcopists, respectively.
RESULTS: We included images from 241 examinations (1 image from each) with adequate annotations. The proportion with a least 1 lesion annotated by 4+ colposcopists increased by severity of histologic diagnosis. Among the CIN3 cases, 84% had at least 1 lesion annotated by 4+ colposcopists, whereas 54% of normal/CIN1 cases had a lesion annotated. Notably, the proportion was 70% for adenocarcinoma in situ and 71% for cancer. Regarding lesion location, there was no linear association with severity of histologic diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Despite that 80% of the CIN2 and CIN3 cases were annotated by 4+ colposcopists, we did not find increasing agreement on lesion location with histology severity. This underlines the subjective nature of colposcopy.
METHODS: Five colposcopists reviewed images from 268 colposcopic examinations. Cases were selected based on histologic diagnosis, i.e., normal/cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)1 ( n = 50), CIN2 ( n = 50), CIN3 ( n = 100), adenocarcinoma in situ ( n = 53), and cancer ( n = 15). We obtained digitized time-series images every 7-10 seconds from before acetic acid application to 2 minutes after application. Colposcopists were instructed to digitally annotate all areas with acetowhitening or suspect of lesions. To estimate the agreement on lesion presence and location, we assessed the proportion of images with annotations and the proportion of images with overlapping annotated area by at least 4 (4+) colposcopists, respectively.
RESULTS: We included images from 241 examinations (1 image from each) with adequate annotations. The proportion with a least 1 lesion annotated by 4+ colposcopists increased by severity of histologic diagnosis. Among the CIN3 cases, 84% had at least 1 lesion annotated by 4+ colposcopists, whereas 54% of normal/CIN1 cases had a lesion annotated. Notably, the proportion was 70% for adenocarcinoma in situ and 71% for cancer. Regarding lesion location, there was no linear association with severity of histologic diagnosis.
CONCLUSION: Despite that 80% of the CIN2 and CIN3 cases were annotated by 4+ colposcopists, we did not find increasing agreement on lesion location with histology severity. This underlines the subjective nature of colposcopy.