| Literature DB >> 23159693 |
Insiyyah Y Patanwala1, Heidi M Bauer, Justin Miyamoto, Ina U Park, Megan J Huchko, Karen K Smith-McCune.
Abstract
Our objective was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening in randomized trials. We conducted a systematic literature search of the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Eligible studies were randomized trials comparing HPV-based to cytology-based screening strategies, with disease status determined by colposcopy/biopsy for participants with positive results. Disease rates (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]2 or greater and CIN3 or greater), sensitivity, and positive predictive value were abstracted or calculated from the articles. Six studies met inclusion criteria. Relative sensitivities for detecting CIN3 or greater of HPV testing-based strategies vs cytology ranged from 0.8 to 2.1. The main limitation of our study was that testing methodologies and screening/management protocols were highly variable across studies. Screening strategies in which a single initial HPV-positive test led to colposcopy were more sensitive than cytology but resulted in higher colposcopy rates. These results have implications for cotesting with HPV and cytology as recommended in the United States.Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2012 PMID： 23159693 PMCID： PMC3686555 DOI： 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol ISSN： 0002-9378 Impact factor: 8.661