IntroductionCurrent guidelines by WHO for cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries involves visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) of the cervix, followed by treatment during the same visit or a subsequent visit with cryotherapy if a suspicious lesion is found. Implementation of these guidelines is hampered by a lack of: trained health workers, reliable technology, and access to screening facilities. A low cost ultra-portable Point of Care Tampon based digital colposcope (POCkeT Colposcope) for use at the community level setting, which has the unique form factor of a tampon, can be inserted into the vagina to capture images of the cervix, which are on par with that of a state of the art colposcope, at a fraction of the cost. A repository of images to be compiled that can be used to empower front line workers to become more effective through virtual dynamic training. By task shifting to the community setting, this technology could potentially provide significantly greater cervical screening access to where the most vulnerable women live. The POCkeT Colposcope’s concentric LED ring provides comparable white and green field illumination at a fraction of the electrical power required in commercial colposcopes. Evaluation with standard optical imaging targets to assess the POCkeT Colposcope against the state of the art digital colposcope and other VIAM technologies.ResultsOur POCkeT Colposcope has comparable resolving power, color reproduction accuracy, minimal lens distortion, and illumination when compared to commercially available colposcopes. In vitro and pilot in vivo imaging results are promising with our POCkeT Colposcope capturing comparable quality images to commercial systems.ConclusionThe POCkeT Colposcope is capable of capturing images suitable for cervical lesion analysis. Our portable low cost system could potentially increase access to cervical cancer screening in limited resource settings through task shifting to community health workers.

The Pocket colposcope performance was similar to that of a standard-of-care colposcope when identifying cervical lesions.

Objective Barriers to cervical cancer screening in low resource settings include lack of accessible high quality services, high cost, and the need for multiple visits. To address these challenges, we developed a low cost intra-vaginal optical cervical imaging device, the Point of Care Tampon (POCkeT) colposcope, and evaluated whether its performance is comparable to a standard-of-care colposcope. Methods There were two protocols, which included 44 and 18 patients respectively. For the first protocol, white light cervical images were collected in vivo, blinded by device, and sent electronically to 8 physicians from high, middle and low income countries. For the second protocol, green light images were also collected and sent electronically to the highest performing physician from the first protocol who has experience in both a high and low income country. For each image, physicians completed a survey assessing cervix characteristics and severity of precancerous lesions. Corresponding pathology was obtained for all image pairs. Results For the first protocol, average percent agreement between devices was 70% across all physicians. POCkeT and standard-of-care colposcope images had 37% and 51% percent agreement respectively with pathology for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). Investigation of HSIL POCkeT images revealed decreased visibility of vascularization and lack of contrast in lesion margins. After changes were made for the second protocol, the two devices achieved similar agreement to pathology for HSIL lesions (55%). Conclusions Based on the exploratory study, physician interpretation of cervix images acquired using a portable, low cost, POCkeT colposcope was comparable to a standard-of-care colposcope.

Objective: The aim of the study was to review the role of hormone therapy in menopausal patients with breast cancer and gynecologic malignancies. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) using a combination of keywords and database-specific subject headings for the following concepts: menopause, hormone therapy, and cancer. Editorials, letters, case reports, and comments were excluded, as were non-English articles. Additional references were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of included articles. The searches yielded a total of 1,484 citations. All citations were imported into EndNote X9, where they were screened by the authors. Results: In breast cancer survivors, systemic hormone therapy is not recommended, whereas local low-dose estrogen therapy may be considered after discussion with the patient's oncologist. Among endometrial cancer survivors, hormone therapy is considered safe in low-risk cancers but should be avoided in high-risk subtypes. For survivors of epithelial ovarian cancer and cervical cancer, hormone therapy can be considered, but should be avoided in women with estrogen-sensitive histologic subtypes. Conclusions: The risks of hormone therapy should be assessed on an individual basis, with consideration of age, type of hormone therapy, dose, duration of use, regimen, route, and prior exposure. Systemic hormone therapy is not recommended in breast cancer survivors, whereas vaginal low-dose estrogen appears safe. Hormone therapy may be used by endometrial, cervical, and ovarian cancer survivors with low-risk, non-estrogen-receptor–positive subtypes. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A516.

No abstract