OBJECTIVES: We estimated the percentage of women infected with human papillomavirus (HPV+) who cannot be immediately treated with cryotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 10,000-woman Costa Rican cohort, we analyzed the 559 HPV+ women aged 25 to 55 years and estimated the proportion for whom immediate cryotherapy was not indicated (i.e., invasive cancer, large precancerous lesions, or benign abnormalities that risk failure such as large ectopy, squamocolumnar junction not visualized, polyps, ulcers, or distorted or atrophied cervix). To determine whether cryotherapy at time of baseline HPV screening would effectively treat HPV+ women, 2 expert gynecologists independently judged entire clinical histories (5-7 years of cytology, histology, and HPV tests) and a full longitudinal series of digitized cervical images. RESULTS: Reviewers judged 144 (25.8%) of 559 HPV+ women as not treatable by immediate cryotherapy. Among 72 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 who would benefit most from a screening program, 35 (48.6%) were not treatable. In particular, 29 women (40.3%) were determined not treatable for reasons most likely associated with cryotherapy's inadequacy (lesion was large, suspected cancerous or in the endocervical canal or fornix). CONCLUSIONS: "Screen-and-treat" programs in low-resource settings will soon use a rapid HPV test to screen older women once or twice in their lifetime, identifying women at higher risk for precancer. Our findings suggest that cryotherapy might not effectively treat many precancers, and other safe, low-technology treatment options could be required, in a scenario where all HPV+ women in this targeted group would receive cryotherapy at the same visit.
OBJECTIVES: We estimated the percentage of women infected with human papillomavirus (HPV+) who cannot be immediately treated with cryotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 10,000-woman Costa Rican cohort, we analyzed the 559 HPV+ women aged 25 to 55 years and estimated the proportion for whom immediate cryotherapy was not indicated (i.e., invasive cancer, large precancerous lesions, or benign abnormalities that risk failure such as large ectopy, squamocolumnar junction not visualized, polyps, ulcers, or distorted or atrophied cervix). To determine whether cryotherapy at time of baseline HPV screening would effectively treat HPV+ women, 2 expert gynecologists independently judged entire clinical histories (5-7 years of cytology, histology, and HPV tests) and a full longitudinal series of digitized cervical images. RESULTS: Reviewers judged 144 (25.8%) of 559 HPV+ women as not treatable by immediate cryotherapy. Among 72 women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 who would benefit most from a screening program, 35 (48.6%) were not treatable. In particular, 29 women (40.3%) were determined not treatable for reasons most likely associated with cryotherapy's inadequacy (lesion was large, suspected cancerous or in the endocervical canal or fornix). CONCLUSIONS: "Screen-and-treat" programs in low-resource settings will soon use a rapid HPV test to screen older women once or twice in their lifetime, identifying women at higher risk for precancer. Our findings suggest that cryotherapy might not effectively treat many precancers, and other safe, low-technology treatment options could be required, in a scenario where all HPV+ women in this targeted group would receive cryotherapy at the same visit.
Authors: Paul D Blumenthal; Lynne Gaffikin; Sylvia Deganus; Robbyn Lewis; Mark Emerson; Sydney Adadevoh Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: You-Lin Qiao; John W Sellors; Paul S Eder; Yan-Ping Bao; Jeanette M Lim; Fang-Hui Zhao; Bernhard Weigl; Wen-Hua Zhang; Roger B Peck; Ling Li; Feng Chen; Qing-Jing Pan; Attila T Lorincz Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: M A Nobbenhuis; J M Walboomers; T J Helmerhorst; L Rozendaal; A J Remmink; E K Risse; H C van der Linden; F J Voorhorst; P Kenemans; C J Meijer Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-07-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lynette Denny; Louise Kuhn; Michelle De Souza; Amy E Pollack; William Dupree; Thomas C Wright Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A B Moscicki; S Shiboski; J Broering; K Powell; L Clayton; N Jay; T M Darragh; R Brescia; S Kanowitz; S B Miller; J Stone; E Hanson; J Palefsky Journal: J Pediatr Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Rolando Herrero; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; M Concepción Bratti; Allan Hildesheim; Jorge Morales; Mario Alfaro; Mark E Sherman; Sholom Wacholder; Sabrina Chen; Ana C Rodriguez; Robert D Burk Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2005-05-02 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Julia C Gage; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Mark Schiffman; Sydney Adadevoh; Manuel J Alvarez Larraondo; Bandit Chumworathayi; Sandra Vargas Lejarza; Luis Villegas Araya; Francisco Garcia; Scott R Budihas; Rodney Long; Hormuzd A Katki; Rolando Herrero; Robert D Burk; Jose Jeronimo Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Alan G Waxman; Lee E Buenconsejo-Lum; Miriam Cremer; Sarah Feldman; Kevin A Ault; Joanna M Cain; Maria Lina Diaz Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Nicole G Campos; Mercy Mvundura; Jose Jeronimo; Francesca Holme; Elisabeth Vodicka; Jane J Kim Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kanan T Desai; Brian Befano; Zhiyun Xue; Helen Kelly; Nicole G Campos; Didem Egemen; Julia C Gage; Ana-Cecilia Rodriguez; Vikrant Sahasrabuddhe; David Levitz; Paul Pearlman; Jose Jeronimo; Sameer Antani; Mark Schiffman; Silvia de Sanjosé Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Alex K Mezei; Heather N Pedersen; Stephen Sy; Catherine Regan; Sheona M Mitchell-Foster; Josaphat Byamugisha; Musa Sekikubo; Heather Armstrong; Angeli Rawat; Joel Singer; Gina S Ogilvie; Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Nicole G Campos; Mauricio Maza; Karla Alfaro; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle; Juan C Felix; Rachel Masch; Miriam Cremer; Jane J Kim Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.561