Skip to main content

Low-cost technology for screening uterine cervical cancer

In India, cervical cancer is the leading malignancy among women, and every year India gets nearly 1.32 lakh cases of cervical cancer and nearly 74,000 women die of the disease.

 We have the standard tests so far for detecting cervical cancer like, cervical cytology, also called Pap test, or a human papillomavirus (HPV) test, or a combination of both. The machines that perform these tests cost up to Rs eight lakhs and can work only in a pathology lab.

so,how to tackle this challenge? and 
How to screen lacs of rural women at potential risk with the help of paramedics or community health workers?

The Magnivisualizer ,  an illuminated, low-cost (Rs 1500 (US$ 36)) magnifying device (Magnivisualizer) for detecting precancerous lesions of the uterine cervix.
The device, named AV Magnivisualizer, will cost Rs. 10,000 and is equipped to work on a 12-volt portable rechargeable battery, requiring no electricity, making it suitable for nearly any remote setting. (Photo: ICMR) it costs Rs.10,000/
Its  a portable, easily manipulated instrument that can be operated using a 12-V, 8–10 Ah dry-cell battery; it can therefore be used in rural areas where there is no mains electricity.
Rural India has a high burden of cervical cancer. This device will help in screening in remote areas.

What are the High-risk clinical signs ?

  •  unhealthy cervix (hypertrophied elongated cervix with abnormal discharge),
  •  bleeding ectopies, and 
  • suspicious appearance of the cervix ---  These signs identified about 60% of cases of cervical cancer at the early clinical stage.

So,  If the test shows suspected cancer, acetic acid can be applied on the cervix and if the area turns white it indicates a high probability of cervical cancer. Such patients would then be referred for cytology, a standard test to confirm cervical cancer.

Note: We can detect  58% of cases of low-grade dysplasia and 83% of cases of high-grade dysplasia; none of these cases were detectable by unaided visual inspection. 
For low-grade dysplasia the sensitivity of detection by means of the Magnivisualizer was 57.5%, in contrast with 75.3% for cytological examination. However, the two methodologies had similar sensitivities for higher grades of lesions. The specificity of screening with the Magnivisualizer was 94.3%, while that of cytology was 99%. The cost per screening was approximately  Rs.30/- for the Magnivisualizer and Rs.100/- for cytology.

Comments