Literature DB >> 24122508

Interlaboratory variation in the performance of liquid-based cytology: insights from the ATHENA trial.

Thomas C Wright1, Mark H Stoler, Catherine M Behrens, Abha Sharma, Keerti Sharma, Raymond Apple.   

Abstract

Although it is recognized that cervical cytology is highly subjective, and that there is considerable interlaboratory variation in how slides are evaluated, little is known as to how this impacts the performance of cytology. In the ATHENA trial, liquid-based cytology specimens from 46,887 eligible women ≥21 years of age were evaluated at four large regional US laboratories, providing a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of interlaboratory variations on the performance of cervical cytology. All women with abnormal cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or higher) were referred to colposcopy, as were all high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women ≥25 years of age and a random subset of those ≥25 years of age who were negative by both hrHPV testing and cytology. Sociodemographics, risk factors for cervical disease, and prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were similar across the laboratories. There were considerable differences among the laboratories both in overall cytological abnormal rates, ranging from 3.8 to 9.9%, and in sensitivity of cytology to detect CIN grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), from 42.0 to 73.0%. In contrast, the hrHPV positivity rate varied only from 10.9 to 13.4%, and the sensitivity of hrHPV testing from 88.2 to 90.1%. These observations suggest that hrHPV testing without cytology should be considered as the initial method for cervical cancer screening.
© 2013 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ATHENA; cervical cancer screening; high-risk HPV; liquid-based cytology

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24122508     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28514

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


  32 in total

1.  Risk Stratification Using Human Papillomavirus Testing among Women with Equivocally Abnormal Cytology: Results from a State-Wide Surveillance Program.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; William C Hunt; Mark Schiffman; Hormuzd A Katki; Li C Cheung; Jack Cuzick; Orrin Myers; Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Point-Counterpoint: Cervical Cancer Screening Should Be Done by Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing with Genotyping and Reflex Cytology for Women over the Age of 25 Years.

Authors:  Mark H Stoler; R Marshall Austin; Chengquan Zhao
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 5.948

3.  p16/Ki-67 Dual Stain Cytology for Detection of Cervical Precancer in HPV-Positive Women.

Authors:  Nicolas Wentzensen; Barbara Fetterman; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Shannon N Wood; Eric Stiemerling; Diane Tokugawa; Clara Bodelon; Nancy Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Walter Kinney
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Performance of Cervical Screening a Decade Following HPV Vaccination: The Costa Rica Vaccine Trial.

Authors:  Shang-Ying Hu; Aimée R Kreimer; Carolina Porras; Diego Guillén; Mario Alfaro; Teresa M Darragh; Mark H Stoler; Luis F Villegas; Rebecca Ocampo; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Mark Schiffman; Sabrina H Tsang; Douglas R Lowy; John T Schiller; John Schussler; Wim Quint; Mitchell H Gail; Joshua N Sampson; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 11.816

Review 5.  False Negative Results in Cervical Cancer Screening-Risks, Reasons and Implications for Clinical Practice and Public Health.

Authors:  Anna Macios; Andrzej Nowakowski
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-20

Review 6.  HPV-FASTER: broadening the scope for prevention of HPV-related cancer.

Authors:  F Xavier Bosch; Claudia Robles; Mireia Díaz; Marc Arbyn; Iacopo Baussano; Christine Clavel; Guglielmo Ronco; Joakim Dillner; Matti Lehtinen; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Mario Poljak; Susanne K Kjaer; Chris J L M Meijer; Suzanne M Garland; Jorge Salmerón; Xavier Castellsagué; Laia Bruni; Silvia de Sanjosé; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 7.  Meta-analysis of downregulated E-cadherin as a diagnostic biomarker for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Xiaoxia Ma; An Ge; Jie Han; Jin Kang; Yating Zhang; Xiaohong Liu; Li Xing; Xiaochun Liu; Li Dong
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-03-13       Impact factor: 2.344

8.  Point-of-Care Digital Cytology With Artificial Intelligence for Cervical Cancer Screening in a Resource-Limited Setting.

Authors:  Oscar Holmström; Nina Linder; Harrison Kaingu; Ngali Mbuuko; Jumaa Mbete; Felix Kinyua; Sara Törnquist; Martin Muinde; Leena Krogerus; Mikael Lundin; Vinod Diwan; Johan Lundin
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-03-01

Review 9.  Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?

Authors:  R Marshall Austin; Chengquan Zhao
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 2.091

10.  A Single-Arm, Proof-Of-Concept Trial of Lopimune (Lopinavir/Ritonavir) as a Treatment for HPV-Related Pre-Invasive Cervical Disease.

Authors:  Lynne Hampson; Innocent O Maranga; Millicent S Masinde; Anthony W Oliver; Gavin Batman; Xiaotong He; Minaxi Desai; Parmenas M Okemwa; Helen Stringfellow; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Alex M Mwaniki; Peter Gichangi; Ian N Hampson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.