scholarly journals Histological outcomes in HPV-screened elderly women in Denmark

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246902
Author(s):  
Gry St-Martin ◽  
Petra Hall Viborg ◽  
Ane Birgitte Telén Andersen ◽  
Berit Andersen ◽  
Jette Christensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Elderly Women ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Birth Cohorts ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Region Of Residence

Introduction Danish women exit cervical cancer screening at age 65 years, but 23% of cervical cancer cases occur beyond this age. In addition, due to gradual implementation of cervical cancer screening, older women are underscreened by today´s standards. A one-time screening with HPV test was therefore offered to Danish women born before 1948. Methods Register based study reporting histology diagnoses and conizations in women found HPV positive in the one-time screening. Number and proportion of women with severe or non-severe histology results were calculated for screened and HPV-positive women by age group or region of residence. Number of women with biopsy and/or conization per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or CIN3+ were also calculated by age groups and region. Results 4,479 (4.1% of screened women) had positive HPV test. 94% of these had one or more additional tests. 2,785 (62%) of HPV-positive women had histology results, and conization was performed in 1,076 (24% of HPV-positive and 1% of all screened women). HPV positivity and CIN3+ detection varied little between regions, but the proportions of HPV positive women undergoing histology varied between regions from 40% to 86% and the proportion with conization from 13% to 36%. Correspondingly, the number of histologies and conizations per CIN3+ detected varied from 5.9 to 11.2 and 1.8 to 4.7, respectively. In total, 514 CIN2+ (0.47% of screened women, 11% of HPV-positive) and 337 CIN3+ (0.31% of screened women, 7.5% of HPV-positive) were diagnosed, including 37 cervical cancer cases. Discussion HPV screening of insufficiently screened birth cohorts can potentially prevent morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer but longer follow-up is needed to see if cancer incidence declines in the screened women in the coming years. Management strategies differed among regions which influenced the proportions undergoing biopsy/conization.

scholarly journals Is Primary HPV with Secondary p16/Ki67 Dual-Stain an Alternative HSIL-Risk Detection Strategy in Cervical Cancer Screening for Women under 30 Years?

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 2012
Author(s):  
Martyna Trzeszcz ◽  
Maciej Mazurec ◽  
Robert Jach ◽  
Karolina Mazurec ◽  
Zofia Jach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Screening Strategy ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Age Range

Recently, cervical cancer rates elevation has been noted in women aged 20–39 years in regions with a very high human development index (HDI). The onset of cancer elevation rates is observed in the age range of 25–29 years, which should necessitate effective precancer screening in younger age groups, including those <25 years. From 30.066 liquid-based screening tests results (n = 30.066), 3849 liquid-based cytology, 1321 high-risk human papillomavirus (HRHPV) and 316 p16/Ki67 performed in women <30 years were selected. Performance characteristics were calculated for three screening models: primary HRHPV with p16/Ki67 triage, primary cytology with reflex HPV and primary cytology alone. Primary HRHPV with p16/Ki67 triage was significantly more sensitive in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion quantified with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse [HSIL(CIN2+)] detection than cytology with reflex HRHPV and cytology alone (83.3% vs. 70.8%/45.8%) and had significantly higher diagnostic predictive values (PPV:29.4%/21.3%/22.9%; NPV:91.7%/82.9%/82.2%, respectively at CIN2+ threshold). The number of colposcopies per HSIL(CIN2+) detection indices was 3.4, 4.7 and 4.4, respectively. Primary HPV testing in women <30 years with p16/Ki67 triage of HPV-positive cases might be an effective cervical cancer screening strategy for HSIL(CIN2+) detection with superior diagnostic performance when compared with primary cytology-based models. Women <25 years might also benefit from an introduction to a more sensitive screening approach.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110109
Author(s):  
Binhua Dong ◽  
Huachun Zou ◽  
Xiaodan Mao ◽  
Yingying Su ◽  
Hangjing Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Hpv Genotyping ◽  
Cytology Screening

Background: China’s Fujian Cervical Pilot Project (FCPP) transitioned cervical cancer screening from high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping to genotyping. We investigated the clinical impact of this introduction, comparing performance indicators between HR-HPV genotyping combined with cytology screening (HR-HPV genotyping period) and the previous HR-HPV nongenotyping combined with cytology screening (HR-HPV nongenotyping period). Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using data from the FCPP for China. We obtained data for the HR-HPV nongenotyping period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013, and for the HR-HPV genotyping period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. Propensity score matching was used to match women from the two periods. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess factors associated with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). The primary outcome was the incidence of CIN2+ in women aged ⩾25 years. Performance was assessed and included consistency, reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and cost. Results: Compared with HR-HPV nongenotyping period, in the HR-HPV genotyping period, more CIN2+ cases were identified at the initial screening (3.06% versus 2.32%; p < 0.001); the rate of colposcopy referral was higher (10.87% versus 6.64%; p < 0.001); and the hazard ratio of CIN2+ diagnosis was 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.43–1.88; p < 0.001) after controlling for health insurance status and age. The total costs of the first round of screening (US$66,609 versus US$65,226; p = 0.293) were similar during the two periods. Higher screening coverage (25.95% versus 25.19%; p = 0.007), higher compliance with age recommendations (92.70% versus 91.69%; p = 0.001), lower over-screening (4.92% versus 10.15%; p < 0.001), and reduced unqualified samples (cytology: 1.48% versus 1.73%, p = 0.099; HR-HPV: 0.57% versus 1.34%, p < 0.001) were observed in the HR-HPV genotyping period. Conclusions: Introduction of an HR-HPV genotyping assay in China could detect more CIN2+ lesions at earlier stages and improve programmatic indicators. Evidence suggests that the introduction of HR-HPV genotyping is likely to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in China.

scholarly journals Recovery strategies following COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening and their impact on excess diagnoses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Castanon ◽  
Matejka Rebolj ◽  
Francesca Pesola ◽  
Peter Sasieni
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Cervical Cancers ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
Screening Services ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. Methods Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25–49 and 5 years at ages 50–64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay. Results Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities—they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000). Conclusion To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.

The Pittsburgh Cervical Cancer Screening Model: A Risk Assessment Tool

2010 ◽  
Vol 134 (5) ◽  
pp. 744-750
Author(s):  
R. Marshall Austin ◽  
Agnieszka Onisko ◽  
Marek J. Druzdzel
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
Dynamic Bayesian Network ◽  
Adenocarcinoma In Situ ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Hpv Test

Abstract Context.—Evaluation of cervical cancer screening has grown increasingly complex with the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and newer screening technologies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Objective.—To create a unique Pittsburgh Cervical Cancer Screening Model (PCCSM) that quantifies risk for histopathologic cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 2, CIN3, and adenocarcinoma in situ) and cervical cancer in an environment predominantly using newer screening technologies. Design.—The PCCSM is a dynamic Bayesian network consisting of 19 variables available in the laboratory information system, including patient history data (most recent HPV vaccination data), Papanicolaou test results, high-risk HPV results, procedure data, and histopathologic results. The model's graphic structure was based on the published literature. Results from 375 441 patient records from 2005 through 2008 were used to build and train the model. Additional data from 45 930 patients were used to test the model. Results.—The PCCSM compares risk quantitatively over time for histopathologically verifiable CIN2, CIN3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer in screened patients for each current cytology result category and for each HPV result. For each current cytology result, HPV test results affect risk; however, the degree of cytologic abnormality remains the largest positive predictor of risk. Prior history also alters the CIN2, CIN3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer risk for patients with common current cytology and HPV test results. The PCCSM can also generate negative risk projections, estimating the likelihood of the absence of histopathologic CIN2, CIN3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer in screened patients. Conclusions.—The PCCSM is a dynamic Bayesian network that computes quantitative cervical disease risk estimates for patients undergoing cervical screening. Continuously updatable with current system data, the PCCSM provides a new tool to monitor cervical disease risk in the evolving postvaccination era.

scholarly journals Performance of HPV16/18 in Triage of Cytological Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Cao ◽  
Shuzheng Liu ◽  
Manman Jia ◽  
Hongmin Chen ◽  
Dongmei Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Squamous Cells ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Undetermined Significance

Context. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is widely used in cervical cancer screening in women; however, its efficiency in triaging women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) needs to be validated. Objective. To evaluate the performance of HPV16/18 in the triage of women with ASC-US. Methods. Women presenting for routine cervical cancer screening had cervical specimens collected, with which both liquid-based cytology (LBC) and hrHPVs were examined; those with ASC-US cytology underwent colposcopy. HPV16/18 and 12 other types were tested with domestic hybridization capture and chemiluminescence signal amplification (DH3). Performance characteristics of HPV test (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) for identification of cervical intraepithelium neoplasma (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), and CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+)) were determined using standard statistical tests. Results. 317 women with ASC-US were eligible for the study. HrHPV prevalence was 15.77% (50/317); HPV16/18 prevalence was 3.61% (20/317). Sensitivity and specificity of HPV16/18 for detection of CIN 2+ were 64.71% and 97% and 64.29% and 96.37% for detection of CIN 3+, respectively. The positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) of HPV16/18 were 55.00% and 97.98% for CIN2+ and 45.00% and 98.32% for CIN3+, respectively. Conclusion. HPV16/18 can be considered as an effective method to triage women with ASC-US as its good clinical performance. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with Henan Cancer Hospital Medical Ethics Committee on July 5, 2016 (http://www.anti-cancer.com.cn), with registry no.: 2016037.

PP62 Cost-Effectiveness Of Cervical Cancer Screening In Estonia

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Triin Võrno ◽  
Kaja-Triin Laisaar ◽  
Terje Raud ◽  
Kai Jõers ◽  
Doris Meigas-Tohver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
Cancer Screening Program ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening Program ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionIn Estonia, organized cervical cancer screening program is targeted at women aged 30–55(59) years and Pap-tests are taken every five years. Since cervical cancer is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), a number of countries have introduced the HPV-test as the primary method of screening. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of organized cervical cancer screening program in Estonia by comparing HPV- and Pap-test based strategies.MethodsFor the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov cohort model was developed. The model was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of eight screening strategies, varying the primary screening test and triage scenarios, upper age limit of screening, and testing interval. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated in comparison to current screening practice as well as to the next best option. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying one or more similar parameter(s) at a time, while holding others at their base case value. The analysis was performed from the healthcare payer perspective adopting a five percent annual discount rate for both costs and utilities.ResultsIn the base-case scenario, ICER for HPV-test based strategies in comparison to the current screening practice was estimated at EUR 8,596–9,786 per QALY. For alternative Pap-test based strategies ICER was estimated at EUR 2,332–2,425 per QALY. In comparison to the next best option, HPV-test based strategies were dominated by Pap-test based strategies. At the cost-effectiveness threshold of EUR 10,000 per QALY Pap-testing every three years would be the cost-effective strategy for women participating in the screening program from age 30 to 63 (ICER being EUR 3,112 per QALY).ConclusionsDecreasing Pap-test based screening interval or changing to HPV-test based screening can both improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening program in Estonia, but based on the current cost-effectiveness study Pap-test based screening every three years should be preferred.

Real time quantitative methylation detection of PAX1 gene in cervical cancer screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1488-1492
Author(s):  
Haifeng Liu ◽  
Xia Meng ◽  
Jingyi Wang
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Invasive Cervical Cancer ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Cancer Group ◽  
Polymerase Chain ◽  
Folic Acid Receptor

IntroductionDNA methylation is currently found to be associated with the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and the development of cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to analyze the role of real time quantitative methylation detection of the PAX1 gene in cervical cancer screening.MethodsAll eligible patients who underwent multiple detections for cervical cancer were assigned to the normal cervical group (n=21), cervical intraepithelial neoplasia I group (n=7), cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II+III group (n=12), or invasive cervical cancer group (n=14) based on pathological gradings. The methylation level of the PAX1 gene was detected using the real time quantitative methylation specific polymerase chain reaction assay and assessed by △Cp value. The diagnostic performance of PAX1 methylation detection was compared with folic acid receptor mediated diagnosis, the Thinprep cytology test, and human papilloma virus (HPV) testing.ResultsThe △Cp value in the invasive cervical cancer group was (6.15±4.07), significantly lower than that in the other groups (F=26.45, p<0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) of PAX1 methylation detection was 0.902 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.817–0.986; p<0.001), and sensitivity and specificity were 92.30% and 78.60% when the cut-off value of △Cp was 13.28. The AUC of PAX1 methylation detection was notably larger compared with 0.709 for folic acid receptor mediated diagnosis (95% CI 0.568–0.849, p=0.009), 0.702 for the Thinprep cytology test (95% CI 0.559–0.844, p=0.015), and 0.655 for HPV testing (95% CI 0.508–0.802, p=0.014).ConclusionThrough quantitative methylation specific polymerase chain reaction assay characterized by rapid screening and simple operation, the methylation detection of the PAX1 gene exhibited a higher diagnostic performance and may be a promising method for cervical cancer screening.

Dynamics of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer Screening

2011 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 243
Author(s):  
Channa E Schmeink ◽  
Leon FAG Massuger ◽  
Willem JG Melchers ◽  
Ruud LM Bekkers ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Carcinoma ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Productive Infection ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Hpv Test

Primary screening based on detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) has proved to be more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Self-sampling for specimen collection may also improve the participation rate, especially in the non-responder group. However, HPV is highly prevalent and therefore HPV detection has a lower specificity in cervical cancer screening than cytology. In addition to the clinically validated HPV test, HPV dynamics should be taken into account. It is important to identify women with a chronic productive infection likely to cause, or to already have caused, high-grade CIN or cervical carcinoma, and to limit overtreatment of women with a transient infection. Furthermore, the introduction of the HPV vaccine is likely to lower the incidence of CIN and cervical carcinoma, which will lower the positive predictive value of cervical cancer screening. This potential impact needs to be taken into account when planning for future screening guidelines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document