European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2008
Screening with a primary human papillomavirus test does not increase detection of cervical cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia 3.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Kotaniemi-Talonen Laura, Anttila Ahti, Malila Nea, Tarkkanen Jussi, Laurila Pekka, Hakama Matti, Nieminen Pekka
Аннотация
AIM: To determine cross-sectional validity of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening in comparison to cytological screening.
METHODS: During 2003-2004, 61,149 women were individually randomised to screening with a test for oncogenic HPV DNA or to conventional cytological screening within the Finnish cervical screening programme.
RESULTS: For HPV screening, cross-sectional relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer was 1.58 (95 % confidence interval 1.19-2.09) in comparison to cytology. At the level of CIN 3 or cancer no increase in relative sensitivity was observed. Cross-sectional specificity estimates for the screening arms were comparable, but the specificity of screening with sole HPV DNA test was clearly inferior.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV screening with cytology triage finds more CIN lesions compared to conventional screening but mild lesions are overrepresented. This is likely to result in overdiagnosis since most mild lesions are regressive.
METHODS: During 2003-2004, 61,149 women were individually randomised to screening with a test for oncogenic HPV DNA or to conventional cytological screening within the Finnish cervical screening programme.
RESULTS: For HPV screening, cross-sectional relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer was 1.58 (95 % confidence interval 1.19-2.09) in comparison to cytology. At the level of CIN 3 or cancer no increase in relative sensitivity was observed. Cross-sectional specificity estimates for the screening arms were comparable, but the specificity of screening with sole HPV DNA test was clearly inferior.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV screening with cytology triage finds more CIN lesions compared to conventional screening but mild lesions are overrepresented. This is likely to result in overdiagnosis since most mild lesions are regressive.