Literature DB >> 29145648

Relative Performance of HPV and Cytology Components of Cotesting in Cervical Screening.

Mark Schiffman1, Walter K Kinney2, Li C Cheung1, Julia C Gage1, Barbara Fetterman2, Nancy E Poitras2, Thomas S Lorey2, Nicolas Wentzensen1, Brian Befano3, John Schussler3, Hormuzd A Katki1, Philip E Castle4.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29145648      PMCID: PMC6279277          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djx225

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  43 in total

1.  Trials comparing cytology with human papillomavirus screening.

Authors:  M Arbyn; G Ronco; C J L M Meijer; P Naucler
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 41.316

2.  Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.

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

3.  Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Resource-Stratified Clinical Practice Guideline Summary.

Authors:  Jose Jeronimo; Philip E Castle; Sarah Temin; Surendra S Shastri
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

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

5.  Spontaneous regression of high-grade cervical dysplasia: effects of human papillomavirus type and HLA phenotype.

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

6.  Making Sense of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines and Recommendations.

Authors:  Michelle Davis; Sarah Feldman
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2015-12

7.  Optimal Cervical Cancer Screening in Women Vaccinated Against Human Papillomavirus.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Emily A Burger; Stephen Sy; Nicole G Campos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ.

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

Review 9.  Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening.

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

10.  The potential harms of primary human papillomavirus screening in over-screened women: a microsimulation study.

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

View more
  32 in total

1.  Automated Cervical Screening and Triage, Based on HPV Testing and Computer-Interpreted Cytology.

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

Review 2.  Molecular mechanisms of the preventable causes of cancer in the United States.

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

Review 3.  Screening for Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Terresa J Eun; Rebecca B Perkins
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 5.456

4.  Use of Single Cell Transcriptomic Techniques to Study the Role of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Infection in Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Lingzhang Meng; Shengcai Chen; Guiling Shi; Siyuan He; Zechen Wang; Jiajia Shen; Jiajia Wang; Suren Rao Sooranna; Jingjie Zhao; Jian Song
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 8.786

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

6.  The Improving Risk Informed HPV Screening (IRIS) Study: Design and Baseline Characteristics.

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

7.  Summary of Current Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Test Results: 2016-2020.

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

8.  Effect of introducing human papillomavirus genotyping into real-world screening on cervical cancer screening in China: a retrospective population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Binhua Dong; Huachun Zou; Xiaodan Mao; Yingying Su; Hangjing Gao; Fang Xie; Yuchun Lv; Yaojia Chen; Yafang Kang; Huifeng Xue; Diling Pan; Pengming Sun
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 8.168

9.  Cotesting in Cervical Cancer Screening.

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

10.  Prevalence of high-grade dysplasia in cytology-negative, HPV-positive cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Stephanie M Peace; Ashley J Jennings
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 2.493

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.