Article Data

  • Views 1208
  • Dowloads 166

Original Research

Open Access

A Performance Evaluation of an Optoelectronic Cervical Screening Device in Comparison to Cytology and HPV DNA Testing

  • Jessica N Vet1,*,
  • James P. Haindl2
  • Carolina Velasquez2
  • Leonie J. Parker3
  • Margaret I. Burns4
  • Stephen Morrell5
  • Michael J. Campion1,3,4,6

1Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Hospital for Women, 2031 Sydney, Australia

2Truscreen Limited, 2070 Sydney, Australia

3Gynaecology Clinic, Orange Aboriginal Medical Service, 2800 Orange, Australia

4Gynaecology Clinic, PiusX Aboriginal

5Department of Womens’ and Children’s Health, University of New South Wales, 2031 Sydney, Australia

DOI: 10.31083/j.ejgo4302027 Vol.43,Issue 2,April 2022 pp.213-218

Submitted: 10 January 2022 Accepted: 15 February 2022

Published: 15 April 2022

*Corresponding Author(s): Jessica N Vet E-mail:


Objective: An optoelectronic screening device (OESD) is evaluated for the detection of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ lesions in comparison to Liquid Based Cytology (LBC) and high-risk HPV DNA (hrHPV) testing. Methods: In total 506 consecutive women referred because of abnormal cervical cytology or a positive high-risk HPV test, had an examination using OESD, LBC, and hrHPV testing. They were screened in 4 colposcopy clinics in New South Wales, Australia. In a retrospective audit, results were compared to the gold standard of colposcopy and biopsies if required. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-curves, and differences using McNemar tests were calculated. All results were available for comparison on 474 patients. Results: The sensitivity to detect CIN II+ lesions by OESD, LBC and hrHPV-testing was 0.72, 0.81, and 0.88, and the specificity was 0.71, 0.95, and 0.76 respectively. The age- and previous-treatment adjusted area under the ROC curve for OESD was 0.83, for LBC 0.94, and for hrHPV testing 0.89. McNemar’s tests showed no significant difference in sensitivity between OESD and LBC (p = 0.26), and no significant difference in specificity between OESD and hrHPV-testing (p = 1.0) amongst patients without previous treatment. Conclusions: The optoelectronic screening device demonstrated comparable sensitivity to high quality cytology conducted in a hospital clinical setting. Specificity was comparable to hrHPV-testing in an approximate primary screening setting. OESD has the advantage of producing an immediate result and being easy to use without need of laboratory equipment. This device can potentially become an important tool in the prevention of cervical cancer, particularly in developing countries and resource-limited settings.


real-time optoelectronic device; cervical screening; CIN; sensitivity; specificity; TruScreen; high risk HPV testing; liquid based cytology

Cite and Share

Jessica N Vet,James P. Haindl,Carolina Velasquez,Leonie J. Parker,Margaret I. Burns,Stephen Morrell,Michael J. Campion. A Performance Evaluation of an Optoelectronic Cervical Screening Device in Comparison to Cytology and HPV DNA Testing. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2022. 43(2);213-218.


[1] Arbyn M, Castellsagué X, de Sanjosé S, Bruni L, Saraiya M, Bray F, et al. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008. Annals of Oncology. 2011; 22: 2675–2686.

[2] Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018 GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68: 394-424.

[3] Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends–An Update. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2016; 25: 16–27.

[4] Ferlay J, Shin H, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. International Journal of Cancer. 2010; 127: 2893–2917.

[5] zur Hausen H. Human papillomaviruses in the pathogenesis of anogenital cancer. Virology. 1991; 184: 9–13.

[6] Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. The Journal of Pathology. 1999; 189: 12–19.

[7] Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N, Meijer CJLM, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2002; 55: 244–265.

[8] Denny L, Kuhn L, Hu C, Tsai W, Wright TC. Human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer prevention: long-term results of a randomized screening trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010; 102: 1557–1567.

[9] Sankaranarayanan R. Screening for cancer in low-and middle-income countries. Annals of Global Health. 2014; 80: 412–417.

[10] Lăără E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet. 1987; 1: 1247–1249.

[11] Anderson GH, Boyes DA, Benedet JL, Le Riche JC, Matisic JP, Suen KC, et al. Organisation and results of the cervical cytology screening programme in British Columbia, 1955-85. British Medical Journal. 1988; 296: 975–978.

[12] Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. British Medical Journal. 1999; 318: 904–908.

[13] Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, Denny L. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2019; 393: 169–182.

[14] Tsu VD, Levin CE. Making the case for cervical cancer prevention: what about equity? Reproductive Health Matters. 2008; 16: 104–112.

[15] Sankaranarayanan R, Budukh AM, Rajkumar R. Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low-and middle-income developing countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2001; 79: 954–962.

[16] Long S, Lei W, Feng Y, Lv D, Cai Y, Yang P. The feasibilities of TruScreen for primary cervical cancer screening: a self-controlled study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2013; 288: 113–118.

[17] Pruski D, Kedzia W, Przybylski M, Jozefiak A, Kedzia H, Spaczynski M. Assesment of real optoelectronic method in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Ginekologia polska. 2008; 79: 342–346. (In Polish)

[18] Singer A, Coppleson M, Canfell K, Skladnev V, Mackellar G, Pisal N, et al. A real time optoelectronic device as an adjunct to the Pap smear for cervical screening: a multicenter evaluation. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. 2003; 13: 804–811.

[19] Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2114–2119.

[20] Lee SJ, Bae JH, Kim JH, Lee SH, Namkoong SE, Park JS. A real-time optoelectronic device in screening of cervical intraepithelial meoplasia. Journal of Women’s Medicine. 2009; 2: 23–28.

[21] Yang H, Zhang X, Hao Z. The diagnostic accuracy of a real-time optoelectronic device in cervical cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018; 97: e11439.

[22] Rahmadhany R, Indarti J. A real-time optoelectronic device in screening of precancerous cervical lesion. Indonesian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015; 3: 117–120.

[23] Özgü E, Yıldız Y, Özgü BS, Öz M, Danışman N, Güngör T. Efficacy of a real time optoelectronic device (TruScreen™) in detecting cervical intraepithelial pathologies: a prospective observational study. Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association. 2015; 16: 41–44.

[24] Pruski D, Przybylski M, Kedzia W, Kedzia H, Spaczynski M, Jagielska-Pruska J. Optoelectronic method for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. Optoelectronics Review. 2011; 19: 478–485.

[25] Shiraz A, Crawford R, Egawa N, Griffin H, Doorbar J. The early detection of cervical cancer. the current and changing landscape of cervical disease detection. Cytopathology. 2020; 31: 258–270.

[26] Hu L, Bell D, Antani S, Xue Z, Yu K, Horning MP, et al. An observational study of deep learning and automated evaluation of cervical images for cancer screening. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2019; 111: 923–932.

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