Literature DB >> 19903804

Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting.

Maarit Leinonen1, Pekka Nieminen, Laura Kotaniemi-Talonen, Nea Malila, Jussi Tarkkanen, Pekka Laurila, Ahti Anttila.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has shown higher sensitivity than cytology for detecting cervical lesions, but it is uncertain whether the higher sensitivity is dependent on the age of the woman being screened. We compared the age-specific performance of primary HPV DNA screening with that of conventional cytology screening in the setting of an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program in Finland.
METHODS: From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2005, randomized invitations were sent to women aged 25-65 years for routine cervical cancer screening by primary high-risk HPV DNA testing (n = 54 207) with a Hybrid Capture 2 assay followed by cytology triage for women who were HPV DNA positive or by conventional cytology screening (n = 54 218). In both screening arms, cytology results of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse triggered a referral for colposcopy. Relative rates (RRs) of detection to assess test sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the histological endpoints of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 1 or higher (CIN 1+), CIN grade 2 or higher (CIN 2+), and CIN grade 3 or higher (CIN 3+). All statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: The overall frequency of colposcopy referrals was 1.2% in both screening arms. Women younger than 35 years were referred more often in the HPV DNA screening vs the conventional screening arm (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.60). The prevalence of histologically confirmed CIN or cancer was 0.59% in the HPV DNA screening arm vs 0.43% in the conventional screening arm. The relative rates of detection for CIN 1, CIN 2, and CIN 3+ for HPV DNA screening with cytology triage vs conventional screening were 1.44 (95% CI = 0.99 to 2.10), 1.39 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.88), and 1.22 (95% CI = 0.78 to 1.92), respectively. The specificity of the HPV DNA test with cytology triage was equal to that of conventional screening for all age groups (99.2% vs 99.1% for CIN 2+, P = .13). Among women aged 35 years or older, the HPV DNA test with cytology triage tended to have higher specificity than conventional screening. The PPVs for HPV DNA screening with cytology triage were consistently higher than those for conventional screening. In both screening arms, the test specificities increased with increasing age of the women being screening, whereas the highest PPVs were observed among the youngest women being screened. Overall, 7.2% of women in the HPV DNA screening arm vs 6.6% of women in the conventional screening arm were recommended for intensified follow-up, and the percentages were highest among 25- to 29-year-olds (21.9% vs 10.0%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage is more sensitive than conventional screening. Among women aged 35 years or older, primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage is also more specific than conventional screening and decreases colposcopy referrals and follow-up tests.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19903804     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp367

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  71 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

3.  The road ahead for cervical cancer prevention and control.

Authors:  J E Tota; A V Ramana-Kumar; Z El-Khatib; E L Franco
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.677

4.  Integrative analysis of DNA methylation and gene expression identified cervical cancer-specific diagnostic biomarkers.

Authors:  Wanxue Xu; Mengyao Xu; Longlong Wang; Wei Zhou; Rong Xiang; Yi Shi; Yunshan Zhang; Yongjun Piao
Journal:  Signal Transduct Target Ther       Date:  2019-12-13

5.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  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

7.  Long-term follow-up of cervical disease in women screened by cytology and HPV testing: results from the HART study.

Authors:  D Mesher; A Szarewski; L Cadman; H Cubie; H Kitchener; D Luesley; U Menon; G Hulman; M Desai; L Ho; G Terry; A Williams; P Sasieni; J Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Comparison of Hybrid capture 2 testing at different thresholds with cytology as primary cervical screening test.

Authors:  D C Rijkaart; V M H Coupe; F J van Kemenade; D A M Heideman; A T Hesselink; W Verweij; L Rozendaal; R H Verheijen; P J Snijders; J Berkhof; C J L M Meijer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Incomplete follow-up of positive HPV tests: overview of randomised controlled trials on primary cervical screening.

Authors:  M Rebolj; E Lynge
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 10.  A systematic review of randomized trials assessing human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Insiyyah Y Patanwala; Heidi M Bauer; Justin Miyamoto; Ina U Park; Megan J Huchko; Karen K Smith-McCune
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.