Literature DB >> 34526301

Exposure Definition in Case-Control Studies of Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Literature Review.

Alejandra Castanon1, Aruna Kamineni2, K Miriam Elfström3, Anita W W Lim4, Peter Sasieni4.   

Abstract

The first step in evaluating the effectiveness of cervical screening is defining exposure to screening. Our aim was to describe the spectrum of screening exposure definitions used in studies of the effectiveness of cervical screening. This systematic review included case-control studies in a population-based screening setting. Outcome was incidence of cervical cancer. Three electronic databases were searched from January 1, 2012 to December 6, 2018. Articles prior to 2012 were identified from a previous review. The qualitative synthesis focused on describing screening exposure definitions reported in the literature and the methodologic differences that could have an impact on the association between screening and cervical cancer. Forty-one case-control studies were included. Six screening exposure definitions were identified. Cervical cancer risk on average decreased by 66% when screening exposure was defined as ever tested, by 77% by time since last negative test, and by 79% after two or more previous tests. Methodologic differences included composition of the reference group and whether diagnostic and/or symptomatic tests were excluded from the analysis. Consensus guidelines to standardize exposure definitions are needed to ensure evaluations of cervical cancer screening can accurately measure the impact of transitioning from cytology to human papillomavirus-based screening and to allow comparisons between programs. ©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34526301      PMCID: PMC8643309          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0376

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


  61 in total

1.  Cervical cancer screening in Japan. A case-control study.

Authors:  S Sato; H Makino; A Yajima; A Fukao
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1997 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

2.  Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Christine Clavel; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Chris J L M Meijer; Heike Hoyer; Samuel Ratnam; Anne Szarewski; Philippe Birembaut; Shalini Kulasingam; Peter Sasieni; Thomas Iftner
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.

Authors:  Peter Sasieni; Alejandra Castanon; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Cancer diagnosis after a report of negative cervical cytology.

Authors:  H S Mitchell; G G Giles
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1996-03-04       Impact factor: 7.738

5.  Evaluation of the cervical cancer screening programme in Mexico: a population-based case-control study.

Authors:  M Hernández-Avila; E C Lazcano-Ponce; P A de Ruíz; I Romieu
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.196

6.  Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.

Authors:  Bengt Andrae; Levent Kemetli; Pär Sparén; Lena Silfverdal; Björn Strander; Walter Ryd; Joakim Dillner; Sven Törnberg
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Cervical cancer case-control audit: Results from routine evaluation of a nationwide cervical screening program.

Authors:  Jiangrong Wang; K Miriam Elfström; Bengt Andrae; Sara Nordqvist Kleppe; Alexander Ploner; Jiayao Lei; Joakim Dillner; Karin Sundström; Pär Sparén
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group.

Authors:  P D Sasieni; J Cuzick; E Lynch-Farmery
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Lower protection of cytological screening for adenocarcinomas and shorter protection for younger women: the results of a case-control study in Florence.

Authors:  M Zappa; C B Visioli; S Ciatto; A Iossa; E Paci; P Sasieni
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-05-04       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Adams; J Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-07-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.