Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.
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.
Castle Philip E, Befano Brian, Hyer Marianne, Cheung Li C, Lorey Thomas, Poitras Nancy, Wentzensen Nicolas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We demonstrated that cervical cancer risk following any screening result is lower if there is a known prior negative screening history vs an unknown screening history. We extended these findings to look at how screening performs following repeatedly negative screening results.
METHODS: Approximately 1.7 million women aged 30-64 years underwent triennial human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology co-testing from 2003 to 2021. We modeled 5-year risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe diagnoses (CIN3+) and invasive cervical cancer for the initial co-test, and then successive rounds following negative co-testing. A logistic-Weibull prevalence-incidence model was used to model risks.
RESULTS: HPV test positivity was greater than cytology positivity for only the first co-test, and both positivity rates decreased with each screening round. Diagnostic yields of CIN3+ and cancer declined with each round of screening so the first screen yielded 8-fold more CIN3+ and invasive cancer than the fifth screen following 4 consecutive negative co-tests. Five-year risks of CIN3+ for positive and negative HPV and cytology results, individually or combined, decreased considerably after the first screen, with smaller decreases in each subsequent round. For cancer, we noticed a considerable decrease with the first screen only. Five-year CIN3+ risks were greater for positive HPV or cytology results, with a longer antecedent screening interval and younger age at screening (Ptrend < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Triennial screening that includes HPV testing becomes inefficient after a single and more so after multiple negative screens. These data support the use of longer screening intervals, especially following negative screen(s).
METHODS: Approximately 1.7 million women aged 30-64 years underwent triennial human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology co-testing from 2003 to 2021. We modeled 5-year risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe diagnoses (CIN3+) and invasive cervical cancer for the initial co-test, and then successive rounds following negative co-testing. A logistic-Weibull prevalence-incidence model was used to model risks.
RESULTS: HPV test positivity was greater than cytology positivity for only the first co-test, and both positivity rates decreased with each screening round. Diagnostic yields of CIN3+ and cancer declined with each round of screening so the first screen yielded 8-fold more CIN3+ and invasive cancer than the fifth screen following 4 consecutive negative co-tests. Five-year risks of CIN3+ for positive and negative HPV and cytology results, individually or combined, decreased considerably after the first screen, with smaller decreases in each subsequent round. For cancer, we noticed a considerable decrease with the first screen only. Five-year CIN3+ risks were greater for positive HPV or cytology results, with a longer antecedent screening interval and younger age at screening (Ptrend < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Triennial screening that includes HPV testing becomes inefficient after a single and more so after multiple negative screens. These data support the use of longer screening intervals, especially following negative screen(s).