Literature DB >> 19540162

HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial.

Henry C Kitchener1, Maribel Almonte, Claire Thomson, Paula Wheeler, Alexandra Sargent, Boyka Stoykova, Clare Gilham, Helene Baysson, Christopher Roberts, Robin Dowie, Mina Desai, Jean Mather, Andrew Bailey, Andrew Turner, Sue Moss, Julian Peto.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is reportedly more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The effectiveness of HPV testing in primary cervical screening was assessed in the ARTISTIC trial, which was done over two screening rounds approximately 3 years apart (2001-03 and 2004-07) by comparing liquid-based cytology (LBC) combined with HPV testing against LBC alone.
METHODS: Women aged 20-64 years who were undergoing routine screening as part of the English National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme in Greater Manchester were randomly assigned (between July, 2001, and September, 2003) in a ratio of 3:1 to either combined LBC and HPV testing in which the results were revealed and acted on, or to combined LBC and HPV testing where the HPV result was concealed from the patient and investigator. The primary outcome was the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in the second screening round, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN25417821.
FINDINGS: There were 24 510 eligible women at entry (18 386 in the revealed group, 6124 in the concealed group). In the first round of screening 233 women (1.27%) in the revealed group had CIN3+, compared with 80 (1.31%) women in the concealed group (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.25; p>0.2). There was an unexpectedly large drop in the proportion of women with CIN3+ between the first and second rounds of screening in both groups, at 0.25% (29 of 11 676) in the revealed group and 0.47% (18 of 3866 women) in the concealed group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.96; p=0.042). For both rounds combined, the proportion of women with CIN3+ were 1.51% (revealed) and 1.77% (concealed) (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.08; p>0.2).
INTERPRETATION: LBC combined with HPV testing resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of CIN3+ in the second round of screening compared with LBC screening alone, but the effect was small. Over the two screening rounds combined, co-testing did not detect a higher rate of CIN3+ or CIN2+ than LBC alone. Potential changes in screening methodology should be assessed over at least two screening rounds. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19540162     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70156-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  96 in total

1.  Longitudinal analysis of carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection and associated cytologic abnormalities in the Guanacaste natural history study: looking ahead to cotesting.

Authors:  Sarah Coseo Markt; Ana C Rodriguez; Robert D Burk; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Sholom Wacholder; Martha Hutchinson; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 5.226

2.  Characteristics of 44 cervical cancers diagnosed following Pap-negative, high risk HPV-positive screening in routine clinical practice.

Authors:  Walter Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; J Thomas Cox; Thomas Lorey; Tracy Flanagan; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 3.  [Computer-assisted diagnostics in cervical cytology].

Authors:  H Ikenberg
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.011

4.  Gynecological cancer: More evidence supporting human papillomavirus testing.

Authors:  Philip E Castle
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Screening: HPV testing for cervical cancer: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Authors:  Philip E Castle
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 6.  Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer: biomarkers for improved prevention efforts.

Authors:  Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Patricia Luhn; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.165

7.  Performance of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 17 population-based studies from China.

Authors:  Fang-Hui Zhao; Margaret Jane Lin; Feng Chen; Shang-Ying Hu; Rong Zhang; Jerome L Belinson; John W Sellors; Silvia Franceschi; You-Lin Qiao; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 8.  Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Sholom Wacholder; Walter Kinney; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Optimal threshold for a positive hybrid capture 2 test for detection of human papillomavirus: data from the ARTISTIC trial.

Authors:  A Sargent; A Bailey; A Turner; M Almonte; C Gilham; H Baysson; J Peto; C Roberts; C Thomson; M Desai; J Mather; H Kitchener
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Optimizing technology for cervical cancer screening in high-resource settings.

Authors:  Lyndsay A Richardson; Joseph Tota; Eduardo L Franco
Journal:  Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.