BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing combined with cytology has been recommended as a primary cervical cancer screening strategy. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the NIH trial registry were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing co-testing with cytology alone for the detection of high-grade CIN lesions and cancers. Of 1156 articles identified, four met inclusion criteria. The performance of co-testing and cytology alone was compared at baseline screening, second round screening and overall. Cumulative meta-analysis, Begg's test, Egger's test and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, co-testing was associated with a significantly higher detection rate of CIN 2+ [risk ratio (RR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12, 1.76] and a non-significantly higher CIN 3+ detection rate (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.33). At second round screening, co-testing was associated with significantly lower detection rates of both CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.93; RR = 0·68, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.85). The overall detection rate did not differ between co-testing and cytology alone for CIN 2+ (RR: 1·19, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.46) or CIN3+ (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.14). CONCLUSION: Co-testing increases the detection of CIN2+ lesions at baseline and significantly decreases the detection rates of CIN2+ or CIN3+ lesions at subsequent screening compared with cytology alone.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing combined with cytology has been recommended as a primary cervical cancer screening strategy. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the NIH trial registry were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing co-testing with cytology alone for the detection of high-grade CIN lesions and cancers. Of 1156 articles identified, four met inclusion criteria. The performance of co-testing and cytology alone was compared at baseline screening, second round screening and overall. Cumulative meta-analysis, Begg's test, Egger's test and sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, co-testing was associated with a significantly higher detection rate of CIN 2+ [risk ratio (RR) = 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12, 1.76] and a non-significantly higher CIN 3+ detection rate (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.33). At second round screening, co-testing was associated with significantly lower detection rates of both CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.93; RR = 0·68, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.85). The overall detection rate did not differ between co-testing and cytology alone for CIN 2+ (RR: 1·19, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.46) or CIN3+ (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.14). CONCLUSION: Co-testing increases the detection of CIN2+ lesions at baseline and significantly decreases the detection rates of CIN2+ or CIN3+ lesions at subsequent screening compared with cytology alone.
Authors: Amy J Blatt; Ronald Kennedy; Ronald D Luff; R Marshall Austin; Douglas S Rabin Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Darrel A Cook; Wendy Mei; Laurie W Smith; Dirk J van Niekerk; Kathy Ceballos; Eduardo L Franco; Andrew J Coldman; Gina S Ogilvie; Mel Krajden Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jane R Montealegre; Matthew L Anderson; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Scott B Cantor; Susan L Parker; Maria Daheri; Shaun Bulsara; Betsy Escobar; Ashish A Deshmukh; Maria L Jibaja-Weiss; Mohammed Zare; Michael E Scheurer Journal: Trials Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 2.279