American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2012
Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: results from the ATHENA HPV study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cox J Thomas, Castle Phillip E, Behrens Catherine M, Sharma Abha, Wright Thomas C, Cuzick Jack, Athena HPV Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare 9 cervical cancer screening strategies to the current screening standard (cytology with human papillomavirus [HPV] triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) for the detection of high-grade cervical disease.
STUDY DESIGN: Women (n = 34,254) aged 30 years or older from the Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics (ATHENA) study underwent screening with cytology and HPV testing with simultaneous HPV16/18 genotyping; those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytology or greater or HPV-positive status were referred for colposcopy.
RESULTS: In general, screening strategies that offered greater sensitivity also required more referral to colposcopy. HPV testing was more sensitive than cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater, but strategies that depended on cytology for triage of HPV-positive women decreased this sensitivity. Various strategies of cotesting with cytology increased sensitivity but did so by increasing testing. Strategies that included integrated HPV16/18 testing provided more efficient referral to colposcopy.
CONCLUSION: Strategies that maximize detection of women at greatest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or greater by immediate referral to colposcopy, with follow-up testing of women at intermediate risk, maximize the benefits of cervical cancer screening while decreasing the potential harm. Incorporating screening with HPV and triage of HPV-positive women by a combination of genotyping for HPV16/18 and cytology provided a good balance between maximizing sensitivity (benefit) and specificity by limiting the number of colposcopies (potential harm).
STUDY DESIGN: Women (n = 34,254) aged 30 years or older from the Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics (ATHENA) study underwent screening with cytology and HPV testing with simultaneous HPV16/18 genotyping; those with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance cytology or greater or HPV-positive status were referred for colposcopy.
RESULTS: In general, screening strategies that offered greater sensitivity also required more referral to colposcopy. HPV testing was more sensitive than cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater, but strategies that depended on cytology for triage of HPV-positive women decreased this sensitivity. Various strategies of cotesting with cytology increased sensitivity but did so by increasing testing. Strategies that included integrated HPV16/18 testing provided more efficient referral to colposcopy.
CONCLUSION: Strategies that maximize detection of women at greatest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or greater by immediate referral to colposcopy, with follow-up testing of women at intermediate risk, maximize the benefits of cervical cancer screening while decreasing the potential harm. Incorporating screening with HPV and triage of HPV-positive women by a combination of genotyping for HPV16/18 and cytology provided a good balance between maximizing sensitivity (benefit) and specificity by limiting the number of colposcopies (potential harm).