Literature DB >> 28887297

Defining Optimal Triage Strategies for hrHPV Screen-Positive Women-An Evaluation of HPV 16/18 Genotyping, Cytology, and p16/Ki-67 Cytoimmunochemistry.

Grazyna A Stanczuk1, Gwen J Baxter2, Heather Currie3, William Forson3, James R Lawrence2, Kate Cuschieri4, Allan Wilson5, Lynne Patterson5, Lynn Govan5, Janice Black5, Tim Palmer6, Marc Arbyn7.   

Abstract

Background: Several options for the triage of high-risk HPV screen-positive (hrHPV+) women were assessed.
Methods: This study incorporated CIN2+ cases and controls, all of whom tested hrHPV+ and whose results of liquid-based cytology (LBC), HPV16/18 genotyping, and p16/Ki67 cytoimmunochemistry were available. Sensitivity and specificity for the CIN2+ of these triage tests were evaluated.
Results: Absolute sensitivities of HPV 16/18 typing, LBC, and p16/Ki-67 cytoimmunochemistry for CIN2+ detection were 61.7%, 68.3%, and 85.0% for women with hrHPV+ clinician-taken samples. Respective specificities were 70.5%, 89.1%, and 76.7%. The absolute accuracy of the triage tests was similar for women with a hrHPV+ self-sample. P16/Ki-67 cyto-immunochemistry was significantly more sensitive than LBC although significantly less specific.Conclusions: All three single-test triage options, if positive, exceed the threshold of 20% risk at which colposcopy would be indicated. However, none of them conferred a post-test probability of CIN2+ <2%; which would permit routine recall. P16/Ki-67 cytoimmunochemistry on HPV16/18 negative women had a post-test probability of CIN2+ of 1.7% and 0.6% if also LBC negative.Impact: This is one of the few studies to directly compare the performance of triage strategies of hrHPV+ women, in isolation and combinations. It is the only study assessing triage strategies in women who test hrHPV+ in self-taken vaginal samples. A combined triage option that incorporated HPV 16/18 typing prior to p16/ki-67 cytoimmunochemistry in HPV 16/18-negative women yielded a post-test probability of CIN2+ of >20%, whereas women who tested negative had a probability of CIN2+ of <2%. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1629-35. ©2017 AACR. ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28887297     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Laser-assisted rapid evaporative ionisation mass spectrometry (LA-REIMS) as a metabolomics platform in cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Maria Paraskevaidi; Simon J S Cameron; Eilbhe Whelan; Sarah Bowden; Menelaos Tzafetas; Anita Mitra; Anita Semertzidou; Antonis Athanasiou; Phillip R Bennett; David A MacIntyre; Zoltan Takats; Maria Kyrgiou
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 8.143

3.  Clinical relevance of partial HPV16/18 genotyping in stratifying HPV-positive women attending routine cervical cancer screening: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  S Gori; J Battagello; D Gustinucci; C Campari; M Zorzi; H Frayle; B Passamonti; G Sartori; S Bulletti; C Fodero; E Cesarini; R Faggiano; A Del Mistro
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Sara B Smith; Sarah Temin; Farhana Sultana; Philip Castle
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-12-05

5.  Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort.

Authors:  Jesper Bonde; Fabio Bottari; Valentin Parvu; Helle Pedersen; Karen Yanson; Anna D Iacobone; Salma Kodsi; Fabio Landoni; Laurence Vaughan; Ditte M Ejegod; Maria T Sandri
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Conventional Cell Blocks Along with p16INK4 and Ki67 Biomarkers as Triage Tests in Resource-poor Organized Cervical Cancer Screening Programs

Authors:  Fanny Desai; Lisam Shanjukumar Singh; Gracy Majachunglu; Helen Kamei
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-03-26

7.  Diagnostic accuracy of cervical cancer screening and screening-triage strategies among women living with HIV-1 in Burkina Faso and South Africa: A cohort study.

Authors:  Helen A Kelly; Admire Chikandiwa; Bernard Sawadogo; Clare Gilham; Pamela Michelow; Olga Goumbri Lompo; Tanvier Omar; Souleymane Zan; Precious Magooa; Michel Segondy; Nicolas Nagot; Nicolas Meda; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Philippe Mayaud
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 8.  Screening for cervical cancer: Choices & dilemmas.

Authors:  Shalini Rajaram; Bindiya Gupta
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2021-08       Impact factor: 5.274

9.  Self-sampling as the principal modality for population based cervical screening: Five-year follow-up of the PaVDaG study.

Authors:  Grazyna A Stanczuk; Heather Currie; William Forson; Gwendoline Baxter; James Lawrence; Allan Wilson; Timothy Palmer; Marc Arbyn; Kate Cuschieri
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2021-12-06       Impact factor: 7.316

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.