RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of cytology, colposcopy and human papillomavirus in detecting cervical intraepithelial lesions in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: Papanicolaou smears (normal, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), colposcopy findings, human papillomavirus and co-testing (Papanicolaou smear + human papillomavirus) were compared with cervical biopsy findings in women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and false-negative rates, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios of cytologic smears, colposcopy findings, human papillomavirus and co-testing were determined. RESULTS: Cytology and colposcopy were performed in 170 systemic lupus erythematosus women (mean age and disease duration of 43.7±12.1 years and 9.7±5.3 years, respectively) and biopsies were performed in 55 patients (38.2% normal, 60.0% low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and 1.8% high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of cytology were 14.7% (95% confidence interval 5.5-31.8%), 95.2% (95% confidence interval 74.1-99.7%), 83.3% (95% confidence interval 36.4-99.1%) and 40.8% (95% confidence interval 27.3-55.7%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of colposcopy findings were 100.0% (95% confidence interval 87.3-100.0%), 0.0% (95% confidence interval 0.0-19.2%) and 61.8% (95% confidence interval 47.7-74.2%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of co-testing were 8.0% (95% confidence interval 1.3-27.5%) and 100.0% (95% confidence interval 71.6-100.0%). The positive predictive value and negative predictive values were 100.0% (95% confidence interval 19.7-100.0%) and 36.1% (95% confidence interval 33.5-38.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In systemic lupus erythematosus patients, colposcopy impressions were more sensitive than cytology and co-testing. However, cytology and co-testing were the most specific tests. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.