OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of the human papillomavirus high-risk DNA test in patients 30 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening (n=835) and diagnosis (n=518) groups were defined based on prior Papanicolaou smear results as part of a clinical trial for cervical cancer detection. We compared the Hybrid Capture II (HCII) test result with the worst histologic report. We used cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 or worse as the reference of disease. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and areas under the ROC curves for the HCII test. We also considered alternative strategies, including Papanicolaou smear, a combination of Papanicolaou smear and the HCII test, a sequence of Papanicolaou smear followed by the HCII test, and a sequence of the HCII test followed by Papanicolaou smear. RESULTS: For the screening group, the sensitivity was 0.69 and the specificity was 0.93; the area under the ROC curve was 0.81. The LR+ and LR- were 10.24 and 0.34, respectively. For the diagnosis group, the sensitivity was 0.88 and the specificity was 0.78; the area under the ROC curve was 0.83. The LR+ and LR- were 4.06 and 0.14, respectively. Sequential testing showed little or no improvement over the combination testing. CONCLUSIONS: The HCII test in the screening group had a greater LR+ for the detection of CIN 2/3 or worse. HCII testing may be an additional screening tool for cervical cancer in women 30 years and older.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the performance of the human papillomavirus high-risk DNA test in patients 30 years and older. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening (n=835) and diagnosis (n=518) groups were defined based on prior Papanicolaou smear results as part of a clinical trial for cervical cancer detection. We compared the Hybrid Capture II (HCII) test result with the worst histologic report. We used cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 or worse as the reference of disease. We calculated sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and areas under the ROC curves for the HCII test. We also considered alternative strategies, including Papanicolaou smear, a combination of Papanicolaou smear and the HCII test, a sequence of Papanicolaou smear followed by the HCII test, and a sequence of the HCII test followed by Papanicolaou smear. RESULTS: For the screening group, the sensitivity was 0.69 and the specificity was 0.93; the area under the ROC curve was 0.81. The LR+ and LR- were 10.24 and 0.34, respectively. For the diagnosis group, the sensitivity was 0.88 and the specificity was 0.78; the area under the ROC curve was 0.83. The LR+ and LR- were 4.06 and 0.14, respectively. Sequential testing showed little or no improvement over the combination testing. CONCLUSIONS: The HCII test in the screening group had a greater LR+ for the detection of CIN 2/3 or worse. HCII testing may be an additional screening tool for cervical cancer in women 30 years and older.
Authors: Anais Malpica; Jasenka P Matisic; Dirk Van Niekirk; Christopher P Crum; Gregg A Staerkel; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial H Guillaud; Dennis D Cox; Edward Neely Atkinson; Karen Adler-Storthz; Neal M Poulin; Calum A Macaulay; Michele Follen Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Qinjing Pan; Jerome L Belinson; Ling Li; Robert G Pretorius; You Lin Qiao; Wen Hua Zhang; Xun Zhang; Ling Ying Wu; Sou De Rong; Yun Tian Sun Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.319
Authors: George Koliopoulos; Marc Arbyn; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Maria Kyrgiou; Walter Prendiville; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-11-03 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Marie-Hélène Mayrand; Eliane Duarte-Franco; Isabel Rodrigues; Stephen D Walter; James Hanley; Alex Ferenczy; Sam Ratnam; François Coutlée; Eduardo L Franco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Timon P H Buys; Scott B Cantor; Martial Guillaud; Karen Adler-Storthz; Dennis D Cox; Clement Okolo; Oyedunni Arulogon; Oladimeji Oladepo; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; José-Miguel Yamal; J Robert Beck; Michael E Scheurer; Dirk van Niekerk; Anais Malpica; Jasenka Matisic; Gregg Staerkel; Edward Neely Atkinson; Luc Bidaut; Pierre Lane; J Lou Benedet; Dianne Miller; Tom Ehlen; Roderick Price; Isaac F Adewole; Calum MacAulay; Michele Follen Journal: Gend Med Date: 2011-09-22
Authors: J R Montealegre; E C Peckham-Gregory; D Marquez-Do; L Dillon; M Guillaud; K Adler-Storthz; M Follen; M E Scheurer Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jane R Montealegre; Indu Varier; Christina G Bracamontes; Laura M Dillon; Martial Guillaud; Andrew G Sikora; Michele Follen; Karen Adler-Storthz; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Ethn Health Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Scott B Cantor; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Martial Guillaud; Dennis D Cox; E Neely Atkinson; John L Benedet; Dianne Miller; Thomas Ehlen; Jasenka Matisic; Dirk van Niekerk; Monique Bertrand; Andrea Milbourne; Helen Rhodes; Anais Malpica; Gregg Staerkel; Shahla Nader-Eftekhari; Karen Adler-Storthz; Michael E Scheurer; Karen Basen-Engquist; Eileen Shinn; Loyd A West; Anne-Therese Vlastos; Xia Tao; J Robert Beck; Calum Macaulay; Michele Follen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.396