Literature DB >> 29971397

Effect of Screening With Primary Cervical HPV Testing vs Cytology Testing on High-grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia at 48 Months: The HPV FOCAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Gina Suzanne Ogilvie1,2, Dirk van Niekerk3,4, Mel Krajden1,2, Laurie W Smith4, Darrel Cook2,4, Lovedeep Gondara4, Kathy Ceballos4, David Quinlan1, Marette Lee4, Ruth Elwood Martin1, Laura Gentile4, Stuart Peacock5,6,7, Gavin C E Stuart1, Eduardo L Franco8, Andrew J Coldman4.   

Abstract

Importance: There is limited information about the relative effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing alone compared with cytology in North American populations. Objective: To evaluate histologically confirmed cumulative incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) detected up to and including 48 months by primary HPV testing alone (intervention) or liquid-based cytology (control). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in an organized Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Canada. Participants were recruited through 224 collaborating clinicians from January 2008 to May 2012, with follow-up through December 2016. Women aged 25 to 65 years with no history of CIN2+ in the past 5 years, no history of invasive cervical cancer, or no history of hysterectomy; who have not received a Papanicolaou test within the past 12 months; and who were not receiving immunosuppressive therapy were eligible. Interventions: A total of 19 009 women were randomized to the intervention (n = 9552) and control (n = 9457) groups. Women in the intervention group received HPV testing; those whose results were negative returned at 48 months. Women in the control group received liquid-based cytology (LBC) testing; those whose results were negative returned at 24 months for LBC. Women in the control group who were negative at 24 months returned at 48 months. At 48-month exit, both groups received HPV and LBC co-testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of CIN3+ 48 months following randomization. The cumulative incidence of CIN2+ was a secondary outcome.
Results: Among 19 009 women who were randomized (mean age, 45 years [10th-90th percentile, 30-59]), 16 374 (8296 [86.9%] in the intervention group and 8078 [85.4%] in the control group) completed the study. At 48 months, significantly fewer CIN3+ and CIN2+ were detected in the intervention vs control group. The CIN3+ incidence rate was 2.3/1000 (95% CI, 1.5-3.5) in the intervention group and 5.5/1000 (95% CI, 4.2-7.2) in the control group. The CIN3+ risk ratio was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.25-0.69). The CIN2+ incidence rate at 48 months was 5.0/1000 (95% CI, 3.8-6.7) in the intervention group and 10.6/1000 (95% CI, 8.7-12.9) in the control group. The CIN2+ risk ratio was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.34-0.67). Baseline HPV-negative women had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of CIN3+ at 48 months than cytology-negative women (CIN3+ incidence rate, 1.4/1000 [95% CI, 0.8-2.4]; CIN3+ risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.13-0.48]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women undergoing cervical cancer screening, the use of primary HPV testing compared with cytology testing resulted in a significantly lower likelihood of CIN3+ at 48 months. Further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN79347302.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29971397      PMCID: PMC6583046          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.7464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  65 in total

Review 1.  Top studies relevant to primary care from 2018: From PEER.

Authors:  Danielle Perry; Samantha Moe; Christina Korownyk; Adrienne J Lindblad; Michael R Kolber; Betsy Thomas; Joey Ton; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2. 

Authors:  Danielle Perry; Samantha Moe; Christina Korownyk; Adrienne J Lindblad; Michael R Kolber; Betsy Thomas; Joey Ton; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Clarification for Reported Colposcopy Rates.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Measuring colposcopy quality in Canada: development of population-based indicators.

Authors:  K Decker; N Baines; C Muzyka; M Lee; M H Mayrand; H Yang; S Fung; D Mercer; S McFaul; R Kupets; R Savoie; R Lotocki; J Bentley
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Assessing the impact of mailing self-sampling kits for human papillomavirus testing to unscreened non-responder women in Manitoba.

Authors:  F Jalili; C O'Conaill; K Templeton; R Lotocki; G Fischer; L Manning; K Cormier; K Decker
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.677

6.  Prevalence and determinants of cervical cancer screening with a combination of cytology and human papillomavirus testing.

Authors:  Joël Fokom Domgue; Sonia A Cunningham; Robert K Yu; Sanjay Shete
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.797

7.  Machine Learning Interpretation of Extended Human Papillomavirus Genotyping by Onclarity in an Asian Cervical Cancer Screening Population.

Authors:  Oscar G W Wong; Idy F Y Ng; Obe K L Tsun; Herbert H Pang; Philip P C Ip; Annie N Y Cheung
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 5.948

8.  LncRNA SOX2OT affects cervical cancer cell growth, migration and invasion by regulating SOX2.

Authors:  Xiaohan Chang; Huijie Zhang; Qing Yang; Li Pang
Journal:  Cell Cycle       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 4.534

9.  Cervical Cancer Screening-Moving From the Value of Evidence to the Evidence of Value.

Authors:  George F Sawaya
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.