scholarly journals Systematic Comparison of Different Meta-analyses, Systematic Reviews and HTA Reports on Cervical Cancer Screening based on Cytology or HPV Test

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (10) ◽  
pp. 1081-1085 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Jentschke ◽  
P. Hillemanns
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systematic Comparison ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Meta Analyses

The Pittsburgh Cervical Cancer Screening Model: A Risk Assessment Tool

2010 ◽  
Vol 134 (5) ◽  
pp. 744-750
Author(s):  
R. Marshall Austin ◽  
Agnieszka Onisko ◽  
Marek J. Druzdzel
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Hpv Vaccination ◽  
Dynamic Bayesian Network ◽  
Adenocarcinoma In Situ ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Hpv Test

Abstract Context.—Evaluation of cervical cancer screening has grown increasingly complex with the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and newer screening technologies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Objective.—To create a unique Pittsburgh Cervical Cancer Screening Model (PCCSM) that quantifies risk for histopathologic cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN] 2, CIN3, and adenocarcinoma in situ) and cervical cancer in an environment predominantly using newer screening technologies. Design.—The PCCSM is a dynamic Bayesian network consisting of 19 variables available in the laboratory information system, including patient history data (most recent HPV vaccination data), Papanicolaou test results, high-risk HPV results, procedure data, and histopathologic results. The model's graphic structure was based on the published literature. Results from 375 441 patient records from 2005 through 2008 were used to build and train the model. Additional data from 45 930 patients were used to test the model. Results.—The PCCSM compares risk quantitatively over time for histopathologically verifiable CIN2, CIN3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer in screened patients for each current cytology result category and for each HPV result. For each current cytology result, HPV test results affect risk; however, the degree of cytologic abnormality remains the largest positive predictor of risk. Prior history also alters the CIN2, CIN3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer risk for patients with common current cytology and HPV test results. The PCCSM can also generate negative risk projections, estimating the likelihood of the absence of histopathologic CIN2, CIN3, adenocarcinoma in situ, and cervical cancer in screened patients. Conclusions.—The PCCSM is a dynamic Bayesian network that computes quantitative cervical disease risk estimates for patients undergoing cervical screening. Continuously updatable with current system data, the PCCSM provides a new tool to monitor cervical disease risk in the evolving postvaccination era.

scholarly journals Performance of HPV16/18 in Triage of Cytological Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Cao ◽  
Shuzheng Liu ◽  
Manman Jia ◽  
Hongmin Chen ◽  
Dongmei Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Squamous Cells ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Undetermined Significance

Context. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is widely used in cervical cancer screening in women; however, its efficiency in triaging women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) needs to be validated. Objective. To evaluate the performance of HPV16/18 in the triage of women with ASC-US. Methods. Women presenting for routine cervical cancer screening had cervical specimens collected, with which both liquid-based cytology (LBC) and hrHPVs were examined; those with ASC-US cytology underwent colposcopy. HPV16/18 and 12 other types were tested with domestic hybridization capture and chemiluminescence signal amplification (DH3). Performance characteristics of HPV test (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) for identification of cervical intraepithelium neoplasma (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), and CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+)) were determined using standard statistical tests. Results. 317 women with ASC-US were eligible for the study. HrHPV prevalence was 15.77% (50/317); HPV16/18 prevalence was 3.61% (20/317). Sensitivity and specificity of HPV16/18 for detection of CIN 2+ were 64.71% and 97% and 64.29% and 96.37% for detection of CIN 3+, respectively. The positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) of HPV16/18 were 55.00% and 97.98% for CIN2+ and 45.00% and 98.32% for CIN3+, respectively. Conclusion. HPV16/18 can be considered as an effective method to triage women with ASC-US as its good clinical performance. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with Henan Cancer Hospital Medical Ethics Committee on July 5, 2016 (http://www.anti-cancer.com.cn), with registry no.: 2016037.

PP62 Cost-Effectiveness Of Cervical Cancer Screening In Estonia

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 49-49
Author(s):  
Triin Võrno ◽  
Kaja-Triin Laisaar ◽  
Terje Raud ◽  
Kai Jõers ◽  
Doris Meigas-Tohver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Pap Test ◽  
Cancer Screening Program ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening Program ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionIn Estonia, organized cervical cancer screening program is targeted at women aged 30–55(59) years and Pap-tests are taken every five years. Since cervical cancer is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), a number of countries have introduced the HPV-test as the primary method of screening. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of organized cervical cancer screening program in Estonia by comparing HPV- and Pap-test based strategies.MethodsFor the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov cohort model was developed. The model was used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of eight screening strategies, varying the primary screening test and triage scenarios, upper age limit of screening, and testing interval. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated in comparison to current screening practice as well as to the next best option. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying one or more similar parameter(s) at a time, while holding others at their base case value. The analysis was performed from the healthcare payer perspective adopting a five percent annual discount rate for both costs and utilities.ResultsIn the base-case scenario, ICER for HPV-test based strategies in comparison to the current screening practice was estimated at EUR 8,596–9,786 per QALY. For alternative Pap-test based strategies ICER was estimated at EUR 2,332–2,425 per QALY. In comparison to the next best option, HPV-test based strategies were dominated by Pap-test based strategies. At the cost-effectiveness threshold of EUR 10,000 per QALY Pap-testing every three years would be the cost-effective strategy for women participating in the screening program from age 30 to 63 (ICER being EUR 3,112 per QALY).ConclusionsDecreasing Pap-test based screening interval or changing to HPV-test based screening can both improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening program in Estonia, but based on the current cost-effectiveness study Pap-test based screening every three years should be preferred.

Dynamics of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer Screening

2011 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. 243
Author(s):  
Channa E Schmeink ◽  
Leon FAG Massuger ◽  
Willem JG Melchers ◽  
Ruud LM Bekkers ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Carcinoma ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Productive Infection ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Hpv Test

Primary screening based on detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) has proved to be more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Self-sampling for specimen collection may also improve the participation rate, especially in the non-responder group. However, HPV is highly prevalent and therefore HPV detection has a lower specificity in cervical cancer screening than cytology. In addition to the clinically validated HPV test, HPV dynamics should be taken into account. It is important to identify women with a chronic productive infection likely to cause, or to already have caused, high-grade CIN or cervical carcinoma, and to limit overtreatment of women with a transient infection. Furthermore, the introduction of the HPV vaccine is likely to lower the incidence of CIN and cervical carcinoma, which will lower the positive predictive value of cervical cancer screening. This potential impact needs to be taken into account when planning for future screening guidelines.

scholarly journals Clinical validation of Anyplex™ II HPV HR Detection according to the guidelines for HPV test requirements for cervical cancer screening

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 36-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.T. Hesselink ◽  
R. Sahli ◽  
J. Berkhof ◽  
P.J.F. Snijders ◽  
M.L. van der Salm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Clinical Validation ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Test Requirements

scholarly journals Evaluation of the SureX HPV Genotyping Test for the Detection of High-Risk HPV in Cervical Cancer Screening

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baojun Wei ◽  
Ping Mei ◽  
Shengkai Huang ◽  
Xueting Yu ◽  
Tong Zhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade ◽  
Agreement Rate ◽  
Hpv Genotyping ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Hpv Types ◽  
High Risk Hpv

Abstract Background: The SureX HPV genotyping test (SureX HPV test), which targets the human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 genes was compared with the Cobas 4800 and Venus HPV tests for detecting 14 high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) types in clinical referral and follow-up patients to evaluate its value for cervical cancer screening.Methods: Two different populations were enrolled in the study. The first population comprised 185 cases and was used for comparing the SureX HPV test (Health, China) with the Cobas 4800 test (Roche, USA). The second population comprised 290 cases and was used for comparing the SureX HPV test (Health, China) with the Venus HPV test (Zhijiang, China). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sequencing was performed for further confirmation of discordant results.Results: In the first population, the overall agreement rate was 95.3% for 14 High-Risk HPV types. Eight discordant cases were confirmed by PCR sequencing, which showed that the agreement rates were 75.0% between the SureX HPV test and PCR sequencing and 25.0% between the Cobas 4800 test and PCR sequencing (P<0.01). In the second population, the overall agreement rate was 94.5%. Thirteen discordant cases were confirmed by PCR sequencing, which showed that the agreement rates were 76.9% between the SureX HPV test and PCR sequencing and 23.1% between the Venus HPV test and PCR sequencing (P<0.01). With cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) as the reference standard, the sensitivity values of the SureX HPV test and the Venus HPV test were 93.5% and 92.0%, (P>0.05), while the specificity values were 43.3% and 46.7%, respectively (P>0.05).Conclusion: The SureX HPV test had good consistency with both the Cobas 4800 and Venus HPV tests for 14 HR-HPV types. In addition, it avoided some false negatives and false positives. Therefore, the SureX HPV test can be used for cervical cancer screening.

scholarly journals CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM WITH PRIMARY DNA-HPV TEST STARTED IN 2017 IN BRAZILIAN CITY: RESULTS AFTER 18 MONTHS

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Teixeira ◽  
Michelle Garcia Discacciati ◽  
Denise da Rocha Pitta Lima de Moraes ◽  
Diama Vale ◽  
Tulio Tomass Couto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cancer Screening Program ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening Program

scholarly journals Comparative Cost Analysis Of Cervical Cancer Screening Programme Based On Molecular Detection Of HPV In Spain

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raquel Ibáñez ◽  
María Mareque ◽  
Rosario Granados ◽  
Daniel Andía ◽  
Marcial García-Rojo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Molecular Detection ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Hpv Dna ◽  
Hpv Test ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: HPV cervical cancer screening (CCS) must use validated HPV tests based on the molecular detection of either viral mRNA (Aptima HPV Assay – AHPV) or DNA. AHPV has demonstrated the same cross-sectional and longitudinal sensitivity for the detection of HSIL/CIN2+ lesions but with greater specificity than HPV-DNA tests. The study aimed to estimate the total costs of a CCS with a primary HPV test based on the detection of mRNA compared to DNA in women aged 35-65 years for the National Health System.Methods: A decision-tree-based model to estimate the cost of the CCS until the first colposcopy was designed based on Spanish CCS guidelines. The total cost (€,2019) for CCS with AHPV or DNA tests (HC2 and Cobas) was calculated, including HPV test, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and colposcopy, for a population of 7,263,529 women aged 35-65 years (assuming 70% coverage). Clinical inputs derived from a literature review were validated by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Data from head-to-head studies between different HPV tests were selected. Results: The use of AHPV showed reduction of 290,541 (-35%) and 355,913 (-40%) LBC compared to HC2 or Cobas, respectively. Furthermore, AHPV avoided 151,699 (-47%) colposcopies vs HC2 and 151,165 (-47%) vs Cobas. The total cost of CCS was €282,747,877 with AHPV, €322,587,588 with HC2 and €324,614,490 with Cobas. Therefore, AHPV savings €-39,839,711 vs HC2 and €-41,866,613 vs Cobas.Conclusions: Assuming that 70% of women from 35-65 years attend the CCS programme, the cost of screening up to the first colposcopy using AHPV would provide cost savings of up to €41.9 million vs DNA tests in Spain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document