F Neis1, B Holleczek2, M Henes3, I Juhasz-Böss4, D Wallwiener3, K J Neis5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. felix.neis@med.uni-tuebingen.de. 2. Saarland Cancer Registry, Saarbrücken, Germany. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Tübingen, Calwerstrasse 7, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Frauenärzte am Staden, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since 01/01/2020, the cervical cancer screening in Germany has been carried out due to the organized early cancer diagnosis guideline (oKFE-RL). In 2007, HPV vaccination was initiated in Germany. The main goal of both initiatives is to further reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. To assess the effect of the new screening strategy in a timely manner, monitoring of short-term changes need to be considered. Ideally, the effects of both prevention methods would be presented together in one model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Because no change in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is initially expected, the incidence of CIN 3 is used as a surrogate parameter to assess the effects of the prevention efforts. Based on expected additional effects of vaccination and co-testing, a model-based estimation of the expected CIN 3 incidence during the evaluation of the screening program is performed using the CIN 3 incidence in the Saarland population. MODELING RESULTS: The oKFE-RL provides for two groups: Primary cytodiagnosis continues until 35 years of age. Here, in the next few years, CIN 3 incidence will be reduced not by the oKFE-RL but by the increasing proportion of vaccinated women. In the group over 35 years, co-testing was introduced with a stringent algorithm. Due to the higher sensitivity of the HPV test, significantly more CIN 3 are detected in the first round of 3 years and thus, the CIN 3 incidence initially increases. As these CIN 3 are absent in the second round, significantly fewer CIN 3 cases will be detected then. These effects suggest a global decrease in CIN 3 incidence of 25.8% after 6 years. CONCLUSION: Observation of the age distribution curve of CIN 3 allows both effects of prevention to be assessed in a timely manner and separately. In the future, data from epidemiologic cancer registries should be incorporated into the model to replace modeling with real data.
INTRODUCTION: Since 01/01/2020, the cervical cancer screening in Germany has been carried out due to the organized early cancer diagnosis guideline (oKFE-RL). In 2007, HPV vaccination was initiated in Germany. The main goal of both initiatives is to further reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. To assess the effect of the new screening strategy in a timely manner, monitoring of short-term changes need to be considered. Ideally, the effects of both prevention methods would be presented together in one model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Because no change in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is initially expected, the incidence of CIN 3 is used as a surrogate parameter to assess the effects of the prevention efforts. Based on expected additional effects of vaccination and co-testing, a model-based estimation of the expected CIN 3 incidence during the evaluation of the screening program is performed using the CIN 3 incidence in the Saarland population. MODELING RESULTS: The oKFE-RL provides for two groups: Primary cytodiagnosis continues until 35 years of age. Here, in the next few years, CIN 3 incidence will be reduced not by the oKFE-RL but by the increasing proportion of vaccinated women. In the group over 35 years, co-testing was introduced with a stringent algorithm. Due to the higher sensitivity of the HPV test, significantly more CIN 3 are detected in the first round of 3 years and thus, the CIN 3 incidence initially increases. As these CIN 3 are absent in the second round, significantly fewer CIN 3 cases will be detected then. These effects suggest a global decrease in CIN 3 incidence of 25.8% after 6 years. CONCLUSION: Observation of the age distribution curve of CIN 3 allows both effects of prevention to be assessed in a timely manner and separately. In the future, data from epidemiologic cancer registries should be incorporated into the model to replace modeling with real data.
Authors: George Koliopoulos; Victoria N Nyaga; Nancy Santesso; Andrew Bryant; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Reem A Mustafa; Holger Schünemann; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Marc Arbyn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-08-10
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Ilkka E J Kalliala; Anita Mitra; Christina Fotopoulou; Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Margaret Cruickshank; Marc Arbyn; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-01-26
Authors: K Syrjänen; S M Kulmala; I Shabalova; N Petrovichev; V Kozachenko; T Zakharova; J Pajanidi; J Podistov; G Chemeris; L Sozaeva; E Lipova; I Tsidaeva; O Ivanchenko; A Pshepurko; S Zakharenko; R Nerovjna; L Kljukina; O Erokhina; M Branovskaja; M Nikitina; V Grunjberga; A Grunjberg; A Juschenko; R Santopietro; M Cintorino; P Tosi; S Syrjänen Journal: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol Date: 2008 Impact factor: 0.196
Authors: Lu Long; Wanshui Yang; Li Liu; Deirdre K Tobias; Ryoko Katagiri; Kana Wu; Lina Jin; Fang-Fang Zhang; Xiao Luo; Xing Liu; Shuji Ogino; Andrew T Chan; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Edward Giovannucci; Xuehong Zhang Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Karen Canfell; Michael Caruana; Val Gebski; Jessica Darlington-Brown; Stella Heley; Julia Brotherton; Dorota Gertig; Chloe J Jennett; Annabelle Farnsworth; Jeffrey Tan; C David Wrede; Philip E Castle; Marion Saville Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Thomas Iftner; Klaus-Joachim Neis; Alejandra Castanon; Rebecca Landy; Barbara Holz; Astrid Woll-Herrmann; Angelika Iftner; Annette Staebler; Diethelm Wallwiener; Claus Hann von Weyhern; Felix Neis; Juliane Haedicke-Jarboui; Peter Martus; Sara Brucker; Melanie Henes; Peter Sasieni Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 5.948