Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2022
Risk-Based Cervical Consensus Guidelines: Methods to Determine Management if Less Than 5 Years of Data Are Available.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Egemen Didem, Perkins Rebecca B, Clarke Megan A, Guido Richard, Huh Warner, Saraiya Mona, Saslow Debbie, Smith Robert, Unger Elizabeth R, Garcia Francisco, Wentzensen Nicolas, Cheung Li C, Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Committee
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In the 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines, clinical management decisions are based on immediate and 5-year cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ risk estimates. However, data for technologies other than human papillomavirus testing and cytology may be limited to clinical trials and observational studies of shorter duration than 5 years. To enable decisions about 1- or 3-year intervals, 3-year CIN 3+ risk equivalents to 5-year CIN 3+ risk thresholds were generated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined screening test result scenarios around the 5-year risk thresholds of 0.15% and 0.55% and calculated the average percent increase in CIN 3+ risk from 3 to 5 years. Using this average increase, we obtained estimates of corresponding risk thresholds at 3 years. We then validated whether use of the 3-year risk threshold would have resulted in equivalent management per the 2019 recommendations.
RESULTS: Around the 5-year CIN 3+ risk threshold of 0.55%, the average increase in risk from 3 to 5 years was 0.16%. Therefore, the equivalent threshold for 3-year risk was estimated as 0.39%. We found no difference in recommendations to return in 1 or 3 years using the 3-year or 5-year risk thresholds in 66 of the 67 scenarios (98.5%) in follow-up in 2019 guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: In this methodological addendum, the Enduring Guidelines Committee adopted the use of the 0.39% 3-year CIN 3+ risk threshold as equivalent of the 0.55% 5-year CIN 3+ risk threshold for technologies with fewer than 5 years of follow-up data. This allows evidence-based guidance for surveillance intervals of 1 or 3 years for new technologies with limited longitudinal data.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined screening test result scenarios around the 5-year risk thresholds of 0.15% and 0.55% and calculated the average percent increase in CIN 3+ risk from 3 to 5 years. Using this average increase, we obtained estimates of corresponding risk thresholds at 3 years. We then validated whether use of the 3-year risk threshold would have resulted in equivalent management per the 2019 recommendations.
RESULTS: Around the 5-year CIN 3+ risk threshold of 0.55%, the average increase in risk from 3 to 5 years was 0.16%. Therefore, the equivalent threshold for 3-year risk was estimated as 0.39%. We found no difference in recommendations to return in 1 or 3 years using the 3-year or 5-year risk thresholds in 66 of the 67 scenarios (98.5%) in follow-up in 2019 guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: In this methodological addendum, the Enduring Guidelines Committee adopted the use of the 0.39% 3-year CIN 3+ risk threshold as equivalent of the 0.55% 5-year CIN 3+ risk threshold for technologies with fewer than 5 years of follow-up data. This allows evidence-based guidance for surveillance intervals of 1 or 3 years for new technologies with limited longitudinal data.