Colposcopic Evaluation of Premalignant Lesions of the Cervix and Its Comparison With Liquid-Based Cytology.

Authors

Khushbu Bano, Kalpana Kumari, Pragati Mishra, Shalini Singh, Sarika Pandey

Published in

Cureus. Volume 18. Issue 7. Pages e112303. Epub Jul 08, 2026.

Abstract

Cervical cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in developing countries. Early detection and timely intervention are crucial for reducing both the incidence and mortality associated with cervical cancer. Hence, comparing colposcopy findings with liquid-based cytology (LBC) results in symptomatic women can improve understanding of diagnostic accuracy, guide clinical management, and inform screening strategies.
A study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College, Saifai. This prospective observational study included 180 female participants who fulfilled the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study group included sexually active women older than 18 years with complaints of discharge per vaginum, postcoital bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, abnormal vaginal bleeding, or a suspicious cervical abnormality on naked-eye examination. These patients were screened with LBC and colposcopy. Upon detection of any premalignant cervical lesion, a cervical biopsy was performed in 104 participants to confirm the diagnosis by histopathological examination (HPE).
LBC showed a sensitivity of 62.50%, a specificity of 63.88%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 43.47%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 79.31%, suggesting that confirmatory HPE is necessary for an accurate diagnosis. Colposcopy showed a sensitivity of 78.13%, a specificity of 95.83%, a PPV of 89.29%, and an NPV of 90.79%. These results emphasize the importance of both LBC and colposcopy for the effective identification and treatment of cervical lesions.
The study concluded that colposcopy is a more effective modality than LBC for the detection of premalignant cervical lesions.

PMID:
42571129
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.