Journal of medical screening · 2010
Optional screening strategies for cervical cancer using standalone tests and their combinations among low- and medium-income populations in Latin America and Eastern Europe.
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.
Sarian Luis Otavio, Derchain Sophie, Shabalova Irena, Tatti Silvio, Naud Paulo, Longatto-Filho Adhemar, Syrjänen Stina, Syrjänen Kari, members of the Latin American Screening Study (LAMS), New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (NIS) groups
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The performance of cervical cancer (CC) screening can be improved by combining Pap smear with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing or visual methods, addressing local demographic, clinical and economic characteristics.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the performance of standalone and combined screening tools in populations with variable prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and CC.
METHODS: Merged data-sets from the Latin American Screening Study and New Independent States cohorts provided results for 15,000 women, screened using Pap smear, HPV testing and visual inspection with acetic acid, in Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Belarus and Latvia. Bayesian correction for verification bias was used.
RESULTS: At CIN2+ cut-off, HPV detection alone was the most sensitive technique. There was an improvement (88.5% to 92.7%) in Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) sensitivity among women ≥35 years old. Using HPV detection alone was the least specific screening tool, regardless of the age group (69.9% [95% CI 66.5-72.8%] and 86.4% [95% CI 84.6-88.2%], in < or ≥35 years, respectively). Of the test combinations, Pap smear (LSIL threshold) with HC2 had the highest specificity (98.7%; 95% CI 98.3-99.0%). However, in women ≥35 years, the sensitivity of Pap alone was superior to that of the combination.
CONCLUSIONS: The Pap test is a highly specific screening option in populations with medium-range CC prevalence. Combined testing for HPV in this scenario may yield slightly better positive predictive values in women ≥35 years of age with LSIL, but at a high incremental cost.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the performance of standalone and combined screening tools in populations with variable prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and CC.
METHODS: Merged data-sets from the Latin American Screening Study and New Independent States cohorts provided results for 15,000 women, screened using Pap smear, HPV testing and visual inspection with acetic acid, in Brazil, Argentina, Russia, Belarus and Latvia. Bayesian correction for verification bias was used.
RESULTS: At CIN2+ cut-off, HPV detection alone was the most sensitive technique. There was an improvement (88.5% to 92.7%) in Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) sensitivity among women ≥35 years old. Using HPV detection alone was the least specific screening tool, regardless of the age group (69.9% [95% CI 66.5-72.8%] and 86.4% [95% CI 84.6-88.2%], in < or ≥35 years, respectively). Of the test combinations, Pap smear (LSIL threshold) with HC2 had the highest specificity (98.7%; 95% CI 98.3-99.0%). However, in women ≥35 years, the sensitivity of Pap alone was superior to that of the combination.
CONCLUSIONS: The Pap test is a highly specific screening option in populations with medium-range CC prevalence. Combined testing for HPV in this scenario may yield slightly better positive predictive values in women ≥35 years of age with LSIL, but at a high incremental cost.