Article Data

  • Views 491
  • Dowloads 123

Original Research

Open Access

Diagnostic value of different colposcopy evaluation methods for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and cervical cancer

  • Fang Liu1,*,
  • Yufang Zhang1
  • Xinyi Xia1
  • Jin Han1
  • Danhong Hu1

1Department of Gynecology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, 314000 Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo.2021.03.2347 Vol.42,Issue 3,June 2021 pp.463-469

Submitted: 12 December 2020 Accepted: 28 February 2021

Published: 15 June 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Fang Liu E-mail:


Objective: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic value of R-way, the 2011 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy (IFCPC), and Reid colposcopy evaluation system for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and cervical cancer (HSIL+). Methods: A total of 987 cases were referred for vaginal microscopic examination, using R-way system, IFCPC and Reid examination, and diagnostic capabilities of the methods for detecting HSIL+ were compared. Results: Using cervical biopsy or conization as the gold standard, in total 170 women (17.2%) had histologically confirmed HSIL+ including 36 women (3.6%) with invasive cervical cancer. The sensitivity for HSIL+ using the three different colposcopy evaluation methods were 74.7% (127/170), 78.2% (133/170) and 62.9% (107/170) for IFCPC, R-way and Reid. Consistency with histopathology was 69.00%, 75.28% and 55.32%, Kappa values were 0.517, 0.599 and 0.310, respectively. Based on HSIL, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of IFCPC and R-way pair for HSIL+ were better than those of Reid. McNemar test results revealed significant differences between R-way and IFCPC and between Reid and IFCPC for HSIL+ (χχ22 = 19.558, χχ22 = 17.876, P << 0.001); however, the consistency rate was better for R-way and IFCPC than for Reid and IFCPC (Kappa = 0.826 vs 0.127, agreement rate: 94.6% vs 70.62%). Conclusion: All three evaluation methods can be used for colposcopy diagnosis of HSIL+, and the diagnostic value of IFCPC and R-way is better than Reid. There is good agreement between R-way colposcopy evaluation and histopathology. Considering the characteristics of easy operation, the R-way evaluation system is worthy of popularization and application in primary hospitals.


Colposcopy; Cervical screening; High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL); IFCPC; Reid

Cite and Share

Fang Liu,Yufang Zhang,Xinyi Xia,Jin Han,Danhong Hu. Diagnostic value of different colposcopy evaluation methods for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and cervical cancer. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2021. 42(3);463-469.


[1] World Health Organization. Cervical cancer. Overview. 2020. Available at: (Accessed: 22 April 2020).

[2] HPV Information Centre. Human Papillomavirus and Related Cancers, Fact Sheet 2018. 2019. Available at: https://hpvcentre. net/statistics/reports/CHN_FS.pdf (Accessed: 22 April 2020).

[3] Luesley D, Leeson S, Desai M, Hadden P, Kitchener H, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Colposcopy and programme management: guidelines for the NHS cervical screening programme. NHSCSP. Publication No.20. 2nd edn. 2010. Available at: eening-programme-and-colposcopy-management (Accessed: 22 April 2020).

[4] Zuchna C, Hager M, Tringler B, Georgoulopoulos A, Ciresa-Koenig A, Volgger B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of guided cervical biopsies: a prospective multicenter study comparing the histopathology of simultaneous biopsy and cone specimen. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010; 203: 321.e1– 321.e6.

[5] Massad LS, Jeronimo J, Katki HA, Schiffman M. The accuracy of colposcopic grading for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2009; 13: 137–144.

[6] Bornstein J, Bentley J, Bösze P, Girardi F, Haefner H, Menton M, et al. 2011 Colposcopic terminology of the international federation for cervical pathology and colposcopy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012; 120: 166–172.

[7] Ranga R, Rai S, Kumari A, Mathur S, Kriplani A, Mahey R, et al. A Comparison of the strength of association of reid colposcopic index and swede score with cervical histology. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2017; 21: 55–58.

[8] Zhao J, Zhang X, Chen R, Zhao Y, Wang T, He S, et al. Performance of the R-way colposcopic evaluation system in cervical cancer screening. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2015; 16: 4223–4228.

[9] Quaas J, Reich O, Frey Tirri B, Küppers V. Explanation and use of the colposcopy terminology of the IFCPC (International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy) Rio 2011. Geburtshilfe. Frauenheilkd. 2013; 73: 904–907.

[10] Vercellino GF, Erdemoglu E, Chiantera V, Vasiljeva K, Malak A, Schneider A, et al. Clinical relevance of objectifying colposcopy. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015; 291: 907–915.

[11] Durdi GS, Sherigar BY, Dalal AM, Desai BR, Malur PR. Correlation of colposcopy using Reid colposcopic index with histopathology-a prospective study. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association. 2009; 10: 205.

[12] Shojaei H, Yarandi F, Ghozati L, Yarandi N, Izadi-Mood N, Eftekhar Z. Acceptable predictive accuracy of histopathology results by colposcopy done by Gynecology residents using Reid index. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2013; 287: 345–349.

[13] Boonlikit S. Performance of the abbreviated Reid colposcopic index in prediction of high-grade lesions. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2016; 134: 41–44.

[14] Apgar BS, Kaufman AJ, Bettcher C, Parker-Featherstone E. Gynecologic procedures: colposcopy, treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and endometrial assessment. American Family Physician. 2013; 87: 836–843.

[15] Akhter S, Bari A, Hayat Z. Variability study between Pap smear, Colposcopy and Cervical Histopathology findings. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2015; 65: 1295–1299.

[16] Petousis S, Christidis P, Margioula-Siarkou C, Sparangis N, Athanasiadis A, Kalogiannidis I. Discrepancy between colposcopy, punch biopsy and final histology of cone specimen: a prospective study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2018; 297: 1271– 1275.

[17] Li Y, Duan X, Sui L, Xu F, Xu S, Zhang H, et al. Closer to a uni- form language in colposcopy: study on the potential application of 2011 international federation for cervical pathology and colposcopy terminology in clinical practice. BioMed Research International. 2017; 2017: 8984516.

[18] Fan A, Wang C, Zhang L, Yan Y, Han C, Xue F. Diagnostic value of the 2011 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy Terminology in predicting cervical lesions. Oncotarget. 2018; 9: 9166–9176.

[19] Kaban I, Cengiz H, Kaban A, Yildiz S, Ekin M, Avci E. Agreement between colposcopy results using the Reid Colposcopic Index and histopathology. Ginekologia Polska. 2015; 86: 537–540.

[20] Suwanthananon C, Inthasorn P. A comparison of the associations of Reid Colposcopic Index and Swede Score with cervical histology. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2020; 46: 618–624.

[21] Pretorius RG, Belinson JL, Burchette RJ, Hu S, Zhang X, Qiao Y. Regardless of skill, performing more biopsies increases the sensitivity of colposcopy. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease. 2011; 15: 180–188.

[22] Roensbo MT, Hammer A, Blaakaer J. Can Dynamic Spectral Imaging System colposcopy replace conventional colposcopy in the detection of high-grade cervical lesions? Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2015; 94: 781–785.

[23] Underwood M, Arbyn M, Parry-Smith W, De Bellis-Ayres S, Todd R, Redman CWE, et al. Accuracy of colposcopy-directed punch biopsies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2012; 119: 1293–1301.

[24] Sørbye SW, Arbyn M, Fismen S, Gutteberg TJ, Mortensen ES. HPV E6/E7 mRNA testing is more specific than cytology in postcolposcopy follow-up of women with negative cervical biopsy. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e26022.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time