Can portable Colposcopes Replace Standard-of-care Colposcopes? A Crossover Trial of Two Portable Colposcopes with a Standard-of-Care Video Colposcope

Document Type : Research Articles


1 Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), Adyar, Chennai, India.

2 Department of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

3 Department of Biostatics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

5 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, NC, USA.

6 Laboratory Oncology, Dr B.R.A.,IRCH, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.


Background: Screen positive women need to be triaged by colposcopy which is a major challenge in low-middle income countries. Portable colposcopes may overcome many challenges, reduce referrals and enable a single visit approach. This study assessed the performance of portable colposcopes and potential to reduce referral. Method: This crossover randomised study enrolled women aged 25 to 65 years with abnormal screening result or cervical symptoms. All women underwent visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), HPV test, colposcopy with two portable colposcopes (Gynocular®, Gynius, Sweden, and Pocket® transvaginal colposcope, Duke University, NC, USA) and a standard video colposcope, and biopsy. Colposcopic Swede score agreement between portable and video colposcopes, as well as agreement of Swede score with histology were calculated for each device. The potential impact of portable colposcopes in a single visit approach was assessed based on the final diagnosis. Results: Among 250 subjects, 27(10.80%) had high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) lesions. Swede scores for Pocket and Gynocular colposcopes were similar to video colposcope in 248 (99.20%) and 247 (98.80%) subjects, respectively (agreement scores 0.9969 and 0.9954, respectively). At a Swede score cut-off of ≥5, all three devices had identical sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 96.30%, 92.30%, 60.50% and 99.50,. Ablative treatment offered at field setting would result in optimal treatment in 52.0% and 85.1% cases when screened with VIA and HPV test respectively; using Pocket colposcope could improve this to 94.0% and 95.9%, respectively. Overtreatment and referral rates reduced from 46.8% and 12.4% to 4.8% and 6.0%, respectively, when VIA test is followed by triage with pocket colposcope. These outcomes were comparable to screening with HPV followed by colposcopy triage. Conclusions: Pocket colposcope performed comparably to the video colposcope. Used by healthcare providers in the field setting, they can augment the results of VIA significantly.


Main Subjects