Background: The main goal of cervical screening programs is to detect and treat precancer before cancer develops. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting precancer. However, reports of rare HPV-negative, cytology-positive cancers are motivating continued use of both tests (cotesting) despite increased testing costs. Methods: We quantified the detection of cervical precancer and cancer by cotesting compared with HPV testing alone at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), where 1 208 710 women age 30 years and older have undergone triennial cervical cotesting since 2003. Screening histories preceding cervical cancers (n = 623) and precancers (n = 5369) were examined to assess the relative contribution of the cytology and HPV test components in identifying cases. The performances of HPV testing and cytology were compared using contingency table methods, general estimating equation models, and nonparametric statistics; all statistical tests were two-sided. Results: HPV testing identified more women subsequently diagnosed with cancer (P < .001) and precancer (P < .001) than cytology. HPV testing was statistically significantly more likely to be positive for cancer at any time point (P < .001), except within 12 months (P = .10). HPV-negative/cytology-positive results preceded only small fractions of cases of precancer (3.5%) and cancer (5.9%); these cancers were more likely to be regional or distant stage with squamous histopathology than other cases. Given the rarity of cancers among screened women, the contribution of cytology to screening translated to earlier detection of at most five cases per million women per year. Two-thirds (67.9%) of women found to have cancer during 10 years of follow-up at KPNC were detected by the first cotest performed. Conclusions: The added sensitivity of cotesting vs HPV alone for detection of treatable cancer affected extremely few women.
Background: The main goal of cervical screening programs is to detect and treat precancer before cancer develops. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for detecting precancer. However, reports of rare HPV-negative, cytology-positive cancers are motivating continued use of both tests (cotesting) despite increased testing costs. Methods: We quantified the detection of cervical precancer and cancer by cotesting compared with HPV testing alone at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), where 1 208 710 women age 30 years and older have undergone triennial cervical cotesting since 2003. Screening histories preceding cervical cancers (n = 623) and precancers (n = 5369) were examined to assess the relative contribution of the cytology and HPV test components in identifying cases. The performances of HPV testing and cytology were compared using contingency table methods, general estimating equation models, and nonparametric statistics; all statistical tests were two-sided. Results:HPV testing identified more women subsequently diagnosed with cancer (P < .001) and precancer (P < .001) than cytology. HPV testing was statistically significantly more likely to be positive for cancer at any time point (P < .001), except within 12 months (P = .10). HPV-negative/cytology-positive results preceded only small fractions of cases of precancer (3.5%) and cancer (5.9%); these cancers were more likely to be regional or distant stage with squamous histopathology than other cases. Given the rarity of cancers among screened women, the contribution of cytology to screening translated to earlier detection of at most five cases per million women per year. Two-thirds (67.9%) of women found to have cancer during 10 years of follow-up at KPNC were detected by the first cotest performed. Conclusions: The added sensitivity of cotesting vs HPV alone for detection of treatable cancer affected extremely few women.
Authors: Warner K Huh; Kevin A Ault; David Chelmow; Diane D Davey; Robert A Goulart; Francisco A R Garcia; Walter K Kinney; L Stewart Massad; Edward J Mayeaux; Debbie Saslow; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson; Mark H Einstein Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Cornelia L Trimble; Steven Piantadosi; Patti Gravitt; Brigitte Ronnett; Ellen Pizer; Andrea Elko; Barbara Wilgus; William Yutzy; Richard Daniel; Keerti Shah; Shiwen Peng; Chienfu Hung; Richard Roden; Tzyy Choou Wu; Drew Pardoll Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas C Wright; L Stewart Massad; Charles J Dunton; Mark Spitzer; Edward J Wilkinson; Diane Solomon Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Thomas C Wright; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; J Thomas Cox; Francisco Garcia; Sue Goldie; Kenneth Hatch; Kenneth L Noller; Nancy Roach; Carolyn Runowicz; Debbie Saslow Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Steffie K Naber; Inge M C M de Kok; Suzette M Matthijsse; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Kai Yu; Noorie Hyun; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Han Zhang; Robin E Stamps; Nancy E Poitras; William Wheeler; Brian Befano; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Erica A Golemis; Paul Scheet; Tim N Beck; Eward M Scolnick; David J Hunter; Ernest Hawk; Nancy Hopkins Journal: Genes Dev Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 11.361
Authors: Julia C Gage; Tina Raine-Bennett; Mark Schiffman; Megan A Clarke; Li C Cheung; Nancy E Poitras; Nicole E Varnado; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Brian Befano; Malini Chandra; Greg Rydzak; Thomas Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Rebecca B Perkins; Richard L Guido; Mona Saraiya; George F Sawaya; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; Sarah Feldman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Douglas P Malinowski; Molly Broache; Laurence Vaughan; Jeff Andrews; Devin Gary; Harvey W Kaufman; Damian P Alagia; Zhen Chen; Agnieszka Onisko; R Marshall Austin Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.493