Literature DB >> 25948606

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.

Mark H Stoler1, R Marshall Austin2, Chengquan Zhao3.   

Abstract

Screening for cervical cancer with cytology testing has been very effective in reducing cervical cancer in the United States. For decades, the approach was an annual Pap test. In 2000, the Hybrid Capture 2 human papillomavirus (HPV) test was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for screening women who have atypical squamous cells of underdetermined significance (ASCUS) detected by Pap test to determine the need for colposcopy. In 2003, the FDA approved expanding the use of the test to include screening performed in conjunction with a Pap test for women over the age of 30 years, referred to as "cotesting." Cotesting allows women to extend the testing interval to 3 years if both tests have negative results. In April of 2014, the FDA approved the use of an HPV test (the cobas HPV test) for primary cervical cancer screening for women over the age of 25 years, without the need for a concomitant Pap test. The approval recommended either colposcopy or a Pap test for patients with specific high-risk HPV types detected by the HPV test. This was based on the results of the ATHENA trial, which included more than 40,000 women. Reaction to this decision has been mixed. Supporters point to the fact that the primary-screening algorithm found more disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 or worse [CIN3+]) and also found it earlier than did cytology or cotesting. Moreover, the positive predictive value and positive-likelihood ratio of the primary-screening algorithm were higher than those of cytology. Opponents of the decision prefer cotesting, as this approach detects more disease than the HPV test alone. In addition, the performance of this new algorithm has not been assessed in routine clinical use. Professional organizations will need to develop guidelines that incorporate this testing algorithm. In this Point-Counterpoint, Dr. Stoler explains why he favors the primary-screening algorithm, while Drs. Austin and Zhao explain why they prefer the cotesting approach to screening for cervical cancer.
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25948606      PMCID: PMC4540928          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01087-15

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  32 in total

1.  Sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing: what are the facts?

Authors:  N Dudding; J Crossley
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.073

2.  Evaluation of HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping for the triage of women with high-risk HPV+ cytology-negative results.

Authors:  Thomas C Wright; Mark H Stoler; Abha Sharma; Guili Zhang; Catherine Behrens; Teresa L Wright
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Authors:  L Stewart Massad; Mark H Einstein; Warner K Huh; Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.925

4.  Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: end of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first-line screening test.

Authors:  Thomas C Wright; Mark H Stoler; Catherine M Behrens; Abha Sharma; Guili Zhang; Teresa L Wright
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia.

Authors:  J Belinson; Y L Qiao; R Pretorius; W H Zhang; P Elson; L Li; Q J Pan; C Fischer; A Lorincz; D Zahniser
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Cervical cancer screening among young adult women in the United States.

Authors:  Katherine B Roland; Vicki B Benard; Ashwini Soman; Nancy Breen; Deanna Kepka; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2008-04-11       Impact factor: 41.316

8.  Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: results from the ATHENA HPV study.

Authors:  J Thomas Cox; Phillip E Castle; Catherine M Behrens; Abha Sharma; Thomas C Wright; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11-19       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Prior high-risk human papillomavirus testing and Papanicolaou test results of 70 invasive cervical carcinomas diagnosed in 2012: results of a retrospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Chengquan Zhao; Zaibo Li; Ritu Nayar; Angelique W Levi; Barbara A Winkler; Ann T Moriarty; Güliz A Barkan; Jianyu Rao; Fern Miller; Fang Fan; Zhongren Zhou; Qiusheng Si; Andrew H Fischer; Charles D Sturgis; Xin Jing; Carrie B Marshall; Benjamin L Witt; George G Birdsong; Barbara A Crothers
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 5.534

10.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds.

Authors:  Henry C Kitchener; Karen Canfell; Clare Gilham; Alexandra Sargent; Chris Roberts; Mina Desai; Julian Peto
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.014

View more
  9 in total

1.  A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2018 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Society for Microbiology.

Authors:  J Michael Miller; Matthew J Binnicker; Sheldon Campbell; Karen C Carroll; Kimberle C Chapin; Peter H Gilligan; Mark D Gonzalez; Robert C Jerris; Sue C Kehl; Robin Patel; Bobbi S Pritt; Sandra S Richter; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Joseph D Schwartzman; James W Snyder; Sam Telford; Elitza S Theel; Richard B Thomson; Melvin P Weinstein; Joseph D Yao
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2018-08-31       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 2.  Human papillomavirus molecular biology.

Authors:  Mallory E Harden; Karl Munger
Journal:  Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 5.657

3.  Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  George F Sawaya; Erinn Sanstead; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Karen Smith-McCune; Steven E Gregorich; Michael J Silverberg; Wendy Leyden; Megan J Huchko; Miriam Kuppermann; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Prevalence of and risk factors for high-risk human papillomavirus infection: a population-based study from Hetian, Xinjiang, China.

Authors:  Mayinuer Niyazi; Sulaiya Husaiyin; Lili Han; Huduyum Mamat; Kundus Husaiyin; Lin Wang
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2016-01-01       Impact factor: 3.363

5.  Choosing wisely: a model-based analysis evaluating the trade-offs in cancer benefit and diagnostic referrals among alternative HPV testing strategies in Norway.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Kine Pedersen; Stephen Sy; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Clinical validation of the PCR-reverse dot blot human papillomavirus genotyping test in cervical lesions from Chinese women in the Fujian province: a hospital-based population study.

Authors:  Pengming Sun; Yiyi Song; Guanyu Ruan; Xiaodan Mao; Yafang Kang; Binhua Dong; Fen Lin
Journal:  J Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 4.401

7.  Low Risk of Cervical Cancer/Precancer Among Most Women Under Surveillance Postcolposcopy.

Authors:  Maria Demarco; Li C Cheung; Walter K Kinney; Nicolas Wentzensen; Thomas S Lorey; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Brian Befano; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.925

8.  The Next Generation of Cervical Cancer Screening: Should Guidelines Focus on Best Practices for the Future or Current Screening Capacity?

Authors:  Phil Castle; Sarah Feldman; Rebecca B Perkins
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.925

9.  A prospective pilot evaluation of vaginal and urine self-sampling for the Roche cobas 4800 HPV test for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Sang-Hyun Hwang; Hye Young Shin; Dong Ock Lee; Na Young Sung; Bomyee Lee; Do-Hoon Lee; Jae Kwan Jun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.