Cancer cervix is the second most common cancer worldwide. It is more prevalent in low resource settings. But it is a preventable disease that’s why in developed countries its incidence has decreased due to effective screening programmes. A study was done in AIMSR Bathinda to compare different screening methods that are VIA, Pap smear and Colposcopy. Results showed that VIA is a good screening method, simple test with low cost and high sensitivity in comparison to Pap smear. It can be easily used in low resource settings. Sensitivity of VIA is 89.4% as compared to 79% for PAP with less specificity. So VIA is a simple objective test. Its results are available immediately allowing further investigations in the same visit. To conclude VIA has a good role in screening programme in low resource settings and can become an alternative screening tool.

1. Ferley J, Shin HR, BrayF, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008. GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 127:2893-917
2. Aswasthy S, Mariya Amin Quereshi , Beteena Kurian, Leelamoni K. Cervical cancer screening: current knowledge & practice among women in rural population of Kerela, India. Indian J Med Res 2012; 136(2):205-10.
3. Johnson C. Conventional cytology. In: Apgar BS, Brotzman GL, Spitzer M(eds). Colposcopy principles and practice. An integerated Text book and atlas. Philadel-phia, WB. Sounders Company 2002; 52-6.
4. Saraiya U. Relevance of cytology services in India today. J Obstet Gynacol India 1986; 36:379-84.
5. Arbyn Mar, Sankaranarayanan Rengas-wamy, Munwongs Richard, Keita Namory, Dolo Amandou. Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 2008; 123:153-60.
6. Khan MA, Raja FY, Ishfaq G, Tahir F, Subhan F, Kazi BM et al. PAP screening for precancerous conditions of the cervical cancer. Pak J Med Res 2005; 44:111-3, back to cited text no 3.
7. Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Rajkumar R, Muwonge R, Swaminathan R, Sanyhakumari S, et al. Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster randomized control trial. Lancer 2007; 370:398-406[Pub Med]
8. Catterina F, Julia G. Critical Review. In: Visual inspection of the uterine cervix with acetic acid (VIA): A critical review and selected articles. Washington DC. Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) 2003:8.
9. Dukes University. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Rockville, Md. Department of health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999; AHCPR publication #99, E101.
10. Gaffikin, Lynne DrPH. Performance of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening: a qualitative summary of evidence to date. Obstet Gynaecol Surv 2003; 58(8).
11. Doh AS. Visual Inspection with acetic acid and cytology as screening methods for cervical lesions in Cameroon. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005:89.
12. Shankarnarayanan R, Mahe C. Cervical cancer control in developing world. Indian J Gynaecol Oncol 2004; 4:5-13.
13. Goel A, Gandhi G, Batra S. Visual Inspection of the cervix with acetic acid for cervical intraepithelial lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 88:25-30.
14. Singh Kavita N, More Shefali. Visual Inspection of cervix with acetic acid (VIA) in early diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and early cancer cervix. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2010; 60: 55-60.
15. Hend S. Saleh. Can Visual inspection with acetic acid be used as an alternative to PAP smear in screening cervical cancer? Middle East Fertility Society Jounal 2014;19:187-191.
16. Bharani Bharti, Phatak Satish R. Acetic acid visualisation of the cervix an alternative to colposcopy in evaluation of cervix at risk.J Obstet Gynecol India 2005; 55(6):530-533.

Goyal Ritu

Assistant professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

AIMSR, Bathinda, Punjab, India