Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort
Background: This study aimed to evaluate three different patterns of cervical cancer screening strategies for detection of cervical diseases. Methods: In total, 10,186 women aged 21–70 years attending cervical screening program were recruited and cotested by human papillomavirus (HPV) assays and cyt...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Elsevier
2020-11-01
|
Series: | Journal of Infection and Public Health |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034120306298 |
id |
doaj-7e5dedc65ae94cbc96cdc165f46c06fe |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Fangbin Song Hui Du Aimin Xiao Chun Wang Xia Huang Zhihong Liu Meifang Zhao Hongjian Men Ruifang Wu |
spellingShingle |
Fangbin Song Hui Du Aimin Xiao Chun Wang Xia Huang Zhihong Liu Meifang Zhao Hongjian Men Ruifang Wu Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort Journal of Infection and Public Health Human papillomavirus Cervical cancer Screening Triage |
author_facet |
Fangbin Song Hui Du Aimin Xiao Chun Wang Xia Huang Zhihong Liu Meifang Zhao Hongjian Men Ruifang Wu |
author_sort |
Fangbin Song |
title |
Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort |
title_short |
Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort |
title_full |
Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort |
title_fullStr |
Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort |
title_sort |
evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort |
publisher |
Elsevier |
series |
Journal of Infection and Public Health |
issn |
1876-0341 |
publishDate |
2020-11-01 |
description |
Background: This study aimed to evaluate three different patterns of cervical cancer screening strategies for detection of cervical diseases. Methods: In total, 10,186 women aged 21–70 years attending cervical screening program were recruited and cotested by human papillomavirus (HPV) assays and cytology. Three-year histological follow-up data was recorded on women with abnormal screening results, and six clinically common screening algorithms were evaluated. Results: Significantly better protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) at three-year follow-up was associated with a negative HPV result than by normal cytology at baseline. HPV screening was more sensitive and less specific than cytology screening. Moreover, HPV screening with HPV16/18 and reflex cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS] threshold) showed a similar sensitivity (94.6% vs. 98.2%, p = 0.125) and a superior specificity as compared to cotesting reflex HPV16/18 and cytology (ASCUS threshold) for CIN2+ (95.8% vs. 95.1%, p < 0.0001), achieving a colposcopy referral rate of 5.4%, and consuming 4.8 colposcopies and 4.4 cytology tests to find one CIN2+. Conclusions: HPV screening with triage of HPV-positive women by HPV16/18 genotyping and cytology provided a good equilibrium between screening effectiveness, the number of cytology tests required, and referral rates; HPV testing was similar in sensitivity to cotesting and safer than cytology, thus especially suitable for large population-based screening programs. |
topic |
Human papillomavirus Cervical cancer Screening Triage |
url |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034120306298 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT fangbinsong evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT huidu evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT aiminxiao evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT chunwang evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT xiahuang evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT zhihongliu evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT meifangzhao evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT hongjianmen evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort AT ruifangwu evaluatingtheperformanceofthreedifferentcervicalcancerscreeningmodalitiesinalargeprospectivepopulationbasedcohort |
_version_ |
1724455829087715328 |
spelling |
doaj-7e5dedc65ae94cbc96cdc165f46c06fe2020-11-25T03:59:03ZengElsevierJournal of Infection and Public Health1876-03412020-11-01131117801786Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohortFangbin Song0Hui Du1Aimin Xiao2Chun Wang3Xia Huang4Zhihong Liu5Meifang Zhao6Hongjian Men7Ruifang Wu8Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Corresponding authors at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, No. 1120 Lianhua Road, 518036 Shenzhen, Guangdong, PR China.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR ChinaBuji Street Family Planning Service Center, Buji Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129, PR ChinaBuji Street Family Planning Service Center, Buji Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129, PR ChinaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Shenzhen Key Laboratory on Technology for Early Diagnosis of Major Gynecological Diseases, Shenzhen 518036, Guangdong, PR China; Corresponding authors at: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, No. 1120 Lianhua Road, 518036 Shenzhen, Guangdong, PR China.Background: This study aimed to evaluate three different patterns of cervical cancer screening strategies for detection of cervical diseases. Methods: In total, 10,186 women aged 21–70 years attending cervical screening program were recruited and cotested by human papillomavirus (HPV) assays and cytology. Three-year histological follow-up data was recorded on women with abnormal screening results, and six clinically common screening algorithms were evaluated. Results: Significantly better protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) at three-year follow-up was associated with a negative HPV result than by normal cytology at baseline. HPV screening was more sensitive and less specific than cytology screening. Moreover, HPV screening with HPV16/18 and reflex cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS] threshold) showed a similar sensitivity (94.6% vs. 98.2%, p = 0.125) and a superior specificity as compared to cotesting reflex HPV16/18 and cytology (ASCUS threshold) for CIN2+ (95.8% vs. 95.1%, p < 0.0001), achieving a colposcopy referral rate of 5.4%, and consuming 4.8 colposcopies and 4.4 cytology tests to find one CIN2+. Conclusions: HPV screening with triage of HPV-positive women by HPV16/18 genotyping and cytology provided a good equilibrium between screening effectiveness, the number of cytology tests required, and referral rates; HPV testing was similar in sensitivity to cotesting and safer than cytology, thus especially suitable for large population-based screening programs.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034120306298Human papillomavirusCervical cancerScreeningTriage |