Literature DB >> 27446578

A comparison between Pap and HPV screening tests and screening methods.

Emma Altobelli1, Giorgio Scarselli2, Amedeo Lattanzi2, Carmine Fortunato3, Valerio F Profeta4.   

Abstract

The present study assesses the results of cervical cancer (CC) screening over two 3-year periods (2008-2010 and 2011-2013) by comparing two screening tests [Papanicolaou (Pap) and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests] and two screening methods (organized and spontaneous). The study population includes women aged 25-64 years who underwent CC screening between 2008 and 2010 and/or 2011 and 2013, divided into those who responded to an invitation letter (organized screening) and those who spontaneously underwent testing at a public or private facility (non-programmed screening). Between 2008 and 2010, the response rates increased from 27.7% in 2008 to 44.5% in 2009 and 67.6% in 2010 (P<0.001). Women aged 25-34 years had the lowest response rate, whereas respondents were more frequent among women aged 35-44 and 45-54 years. Significant differences (P<0.001) were identified between organized and spontaneous screening test results with regard to diagnostic categories high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (50.5 vs. 49.5%), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (42.8 vs. 57.2%) and undetermined lesion atypical glandular cells (AGC; 57.5 vs. 42.5%) or atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US; 54.2 vs. 45.8%). Compared with spontaneous screening, the organized programme resulted in a larger number of women screened for CC; it reduced the frequency of undetermined diagnoses (AGC, ASC-US), and identified a larger number of high-grade lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Papanicolaou test; cancer; cervical cancer; human papillomavirus test; screening

Year:  2016        PMID: 27446578      PMCID: PMC4950645          DOI: 10.3892/mco.2016.909

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol        ISSN: 2049-9450


  13 in total

Review 1.  [Methods to increase participation in cancer screening programmes].

Authors:  Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Laura Camilloni; Carla Cogo; Antonio Federici; Eliana Ferroni; Giacomo Furnari; Livia Giordano; Grazia Grazzini; Anna Iossa; Beatriz Jimenez; Mauro Palazzi; Fabio Palazzo; Teresa Spadea; Carlo Senore; Piero Borgia; Gabriella Guasticchi
Journal:  Epidemiol Prev       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.901

Review 2.  Cervical carcinoma in the European Union: an update on disease burden, screening program state of activation, and coverage as of March 2014.

Authors:  Emma Altobelli; Amedeo Lattanzi
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.437

Review 3.  2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities.

Authors:  Thomas C Wright; J Thomas Cox; L Stewart Massad; Leo B Twiggs; Edward J Wilkinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-04-24       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Global estimates of cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008.

Authors:  Freddie Bray; Jian-Song Ren; Eric Masuyer; Jacques Ferlay
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-07-26       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study.

Authors:  J Waller; M Jackowska; L Marlow; J Wardle
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2011-06-14       Impact factor: 6.531

6.  Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Guglielmo Ronco; Paolo Giorgi-Rossi; Francesca Carozzi; Massimo Confortini; Paolo Dalla Palma; Annarosa Del Mistro; Bruno Ghiringhello; Salvatore Girlando; Anna Gillio-Tos; Laura De Marco; Carlo Naldoni; Paola Pierotti; Raffaella Rizzolo; Patrizia Schincaglia; Manuel Zorzi; Marco Zappa; Nereo Segnan; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  A method to estimate mortality trends when death certificates are imprecisely coded: an application to cervical cancer in Italy.

Authors:  Riccardo Capocaccia; Lucia Martina; Riccardo Inghelmann; Emanuele Crocetti; Vincenzo De Lisi; Fabio Falcini; Stefano Guzzinati; Stefano Rosso; Giovanna Tagliabue; Rosario Tumino; Marina Vercelli; Roberto Zanetti; Roberta De Angelis
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination.

Authors:  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Natasha K Stout; Joshua A Salomon; Karen M Kuntz; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  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

10.  Self-sampling to increase participation in cervical cancer screening: an RCT comparing home mailing, distribution in pharmacies, and recall letter.

Authors:  P Giorgi Rossi; C Fortunato; P Barbarino; S Boveri; S Caroli; A Del Mistro; A Ferro; C Giammaria; M Manfredi; T Moretto; A Pasquini; M Sideri; M C Tufi; C Cogo; E Altobelli
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  3 in total

1.  Methylation analysis and HPV genotyping of self-collected cervical samples from women not responding to screening invitation and review of the literature.

Authors:  Annarosa Del Mistro; Helena Frayle; Martina Rizzi; Gianpiero Fantin; Antonio Ferro; Paolo Matteo Angeletti; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Emma Altobelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  HPV-vaccination and cancer cervical screening in 53 WHO European Countries: An update on prevention programs according to income level.

Authors:  Emma Altobelli; Leonardo Rapacchietta; Valerio F Profeta; Roberto Fagnano
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 3.  Willingness to pay for and acceptance of cervical cancer prevention methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anahita Shokri Jamnani; Aziz Rezapour; Najmeh Moradi; Mostafa Langarizadeh
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2021-06-23
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.