Literature DB >> 19626591

How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?

Marc Arbyn1, Guglielmo Ronco, Jack Cuzick, Nicolas Wentzensen, Philip E Castle.   

Abstract

Excellent recommendations exist for studying therapeutic and diagnostic questions. We observe that good guidelines on assessment of evidence for screening questions are currently lacking. Guidelines for diagnostic research (STARD), involving systematic application of the reference test (gold standard) to all subjects of large study populations, are not pertinent in situations of screening for disease that is currently not yet present. A five-step framework is proposed for assessing the potential use of a biomarker as a screening tool for cervical cancer: i) correlation studies establishing a trend between the rate of biomarker expression and severity of neoplasia; ii) diagnostic studies in a clinical setting where all women are submitted to verification by the reference standard; iii) biobank-based studies with assessment in archived cytology samples of the biomarker in cervical cancer cases and controls; iv) prospective cohort studies with baseline assessment of the biomarker and monitoring of disease; v) randomised intervention trials aiming to observe reduced incidence of cancer (or its surrogate, severe dysplasia) in the experimental arm at subsequent screening rounds. The 5-phases framework should guide researchers and test developers in planning assessment of new biomarkers and protect clinicians and stakeholders against premature claims for insufficiently evaluated products.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19626591      PMCID: PMC2790915          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24774

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  70 in total

1.  Avoiding verification bias in screening test evaluation in resource poor settings: a case study from Zimbabwe.

Authors:  Lynne Gaffikin; John McGrath; Marc Arbyn; Paul D Blumenthal
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Interobserver agreement in the assessment of components of colposcopic grading.

Authors:  L Stewart Massad; Jose Jeronimo; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  A Schatzkin; R J Connor; P R Taylor; B Bunnag
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias.

Authors:  C B Begg; R A Greenes
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.

Authors:  Bengt Andrae; Levent Kemetli; Pär Sparén; Lena Silfverdal; Björn Strander; Walter Ryd; Joakim Dillner; Sven Törnberg
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA testing as a predictive marker for cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  A Kathrine Lie; Gunnar Kristensen
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 5.225

Review 7.  Human papillomavirus mRNA and p16 detection as biomarkers for the improved diagnosis of cervical neoplasia.

Authors:  Kate Cuschieri; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 8.  Cervical cancer screening following prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination.

Authors:  Eduardo L Franco; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2008-03-14       Impact factor: 3.641

Review 9.  Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Arbyn; M Kyrgiou; C Simoens; A O Raifu; G Koliopoulos; P Martin-Hirsch; W Prendiville; E Paraskevaidis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-09-18

10.  Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer.

Authors:  M Hakama; J Chamberlain; N E Day; A B Miller; P C Prorok
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  31 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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 3.  Clinical application of DNA ploidy to cervical cancer screening: A review.

Authors:  David Garner
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-10

4.  Comparison of seven tests for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with abnormal smears: the Predictors 2 study.

Authors:  Anne Szarewski; David Mesher; Louise Cadman; Janet Austin; Lesley Ashdown-Barr; Linda Ho; George Terry; Stuart Liddle; Martin Young; Mark Stoler; Julie McCarthy; Corrina Wright; Christine Bergeron; W P Soutter; Deirdre Lyons; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Clinical impact of the analytical specificity of the hybrid capture 2 test: data from the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer (NTCC) study.

Authors:  Anna Gillio-Tos; Laura De Marco; Francesca Maria Carozzi; Annarosa Del Mistro; Salvatore Girlando; Elena Burroni; Helena Frayle-Salamanca; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Paola Pierotti; Guglielmo Ronco
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  DNA cytometry testing for cervical cancer screening: approaches and reporting standards for new technologies.

Authors:  Graham A Colditz; John Crowley
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  The Value of a Novel Panel of Cervical Cancer Biomarkers for Triage of HPV Positive Patients and for Detecting Disease Progression.

Authors:  Norbert Varga; Johanna Mózes; Helen Keegan; Christine White; Lynne Kelly; Loretto Pilkington; Márta Benczik; Schaff Zsuzsanna; Gábor Sobel; Róbert Koiss; Edit Babarczi; Miklos Nyíri; Laura Kovács; Sebe Attila; Borbála Kaltenecker; Adrienn Géresi; Adrienn Kocsis; John O'Leary; Cara M Martin; Csaba Jeney
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 3.201

8.  Inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor by erlotinib prevents immortalization of human cervical cells by Human Papillomavirus type 16.

Authors:  Craig D Woodworth; Laura P Diefendorf; David F Jette; Abdulmajid Mohammed; Michael A Moses; Sylvia A Searleman; Dan A Stevens; Katelynn M Wilton; Sumona Mondal
Journal:  Virology       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 3.616

9.  Claspin as a biomarker of human papillomavirus-related high grade lesions of uterine cervix.

Authors:  Maria Benevolo; Antonio Musio; Amina Vocaturo; Maria Gabriella Donà; Francesca Rollo; Irene Terrenato; Mariantonia Carosi; Edoardo Pescarmona; Giuseppe Vocaturo; Marcella Mottolese
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 5.531

Review 10.  Molecular tests potentially improving HPV screening and genotyping for cervical cancer prevention.

Authors:  Ana Gradíssimo; Robert D Burk
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 5.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.