International journal of cancer · 2007
Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Bais Aagje G, van Kemenade Folkert J, Berkhof Johannes, Verheijen René H M, Snijders Peter J F, Voorhorst Feja, Babović Milena, van Ballegooijen Marjolein, Helmerhorst Theo J M, Meijer Chris J L M
Аннотация
Women not attending cervical screening programs are at increased risk of cervical cancer. We investigated in these nonresponders to what extent offering self-sampling devices for cervicovaginal brushes for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing would induce participation and, if so, what the yield of precursor (i.e. CIN2 or worse) lesions following self-sampling would be. In addition, we assessed screening history of participants and costs per detected high-grade CIN2 or worse ("CIN2+") lesion in comparison to the regular program in the Netherlands. Nonresponders received a device for hrHPV testing (self-sampling group, n=2,546) or an extra recall for conventional cytology (control group, n=284). The percentage of self-sampling responders were compared with responders in the recall group. hrHPV positive self-sampling responders were invited for cytology and colposcopy. CIN2+ yield and costs per detected CIN2+ were evaluated. Active response was higher in the self-sampling than in the control group (34.2 vs. 17.6%; p<0.001). hrHPV positive self-sampling responders were less likely to have a prior screening history than screening participants (p<0.001), indicating that they are regular nonresponders. hrHPV prevalence was similar (8.0 vs. 6.8%; p=0.11), but CIN2+ yield was higher in self-sampling responders compared to screening participants (1.67 vs. 0.97%; OR=2.93, 95% CI 1.48-5.80; p=0.0013). Costs per CIN2+ lesion detected via self-sampling were in the same range as those calculated for conventional cytological screening (euro 8,836 vs. euro 7,599). Offering self-sampling for hrHPV testing in nonresponders is an attractive adjunct to effectively increase population coverage of screening without the adverse effect of markedly increased costs per detected CIN2+ lesion.