Human papillomavirus testing in the prevention of cervical cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schiffman M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3046952 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the most cost-effective screening programme for cervical cancer.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective.SettingThe Netherlands.PopulationDutch women who have not been invited for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.MethodsWe calibrated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model to Dutch epidemiological data. We used this model to consider nine screening strategies that use: (i) cytological testing with cytology triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears; (ii) HPV testing with cytology triage for HPV-positive smears; or (iii) cytological testing with HPV triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears. For each strategy, we varied the number of screening rounds, the time interval, the age of the first screening, and the type of cytological testing (conventional or liquid-based cytology).Main outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs from a societal perspective.ResultsUnder the base-case assumptions, primary HPV testing with cytology triage is the most cost-effective strategy. Using cost-effectiveness thresholds of € 20,000 and € 50,000 per QALY gained yields optimal screening programmes with three and seven screening rounds, respectively. The results are sensitive to several uncertain model inputs, most importantly the costs of the HPV test. For women aged 32 years or younger, primary cytology screening is more cost-effective than primary HPV testing.ConclusionsIncreasing the interval between screening rounds and changing the primary test from cytology to HPV testing can improve the effectiveness and decrease the costs of cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.
| S-EPMC3489039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNew screening technologies and vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), the necessary cause of cervical cancer, may impact optimal approaches to prevent cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies to inform cervical cancer prevention guidelines in Norway.MethodsWe leveraged the primary epidemiologic and economic data from Norway to contextualise a simulation model of HPV-induced cervical cancer. The current cytology-only screening was compared with strategies involving cytology at younger ages and primary HPV-based screening at older ages (31/34+ years), an option being actively deliberated by the Norwegian government. We varied the switch-age, screening interval, and triage strategies for women with HPV-positive results. Uncertainty was evaluated in sensitivity analysis.ResultsCurrent cytology-only screening was less effective and more costly than strategies that involve switching to primary HPV testing in older ages. For unvaccinated women, switching at age 34 years to primary HPV testing every 4 years was optimal given the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold ($83,000 per year of life saved). For vaccinated women, a 6-year screening interval was cost-effective. When we considered a wider range of strategies, we found that an earlier switch to HPV testing (at age 31 years) may be preferred.ConclusionsStrategies involving a switch to HPV testing for primary screening in older women is expected to be cost-effective compared with current recommendations in Norway.
| S-EPMC3341862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate clinician and patient attitudes toward home self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening.Women aged 21-65 years were recruited for a randomized trial comparing home self-collected HPV testing to standard clinician-collected Pap screening. Participants were surveyed about their attitudes toward self-collected HPV testing. Clinicians performing cervical cancer screening in University of Washington medical clinics were also surveyed to determine their acceptability of self-collected HPV testing.Over half (59.1%) of the 1,769 women surveyed preferred self-collected HPV testing to clinician-collected tests. Reasons most often cited were convenience or time saving (82.7%), and avoiding embarrassment or discomfort associated with pelvic exam (38.1%). Women who did not prefer self-collected HPV testing reported greater faith in clinician-collected samples (56.7%) or a desire for a clinic visit to address other issues (42.4%). One hundred eighteen (49.6%) of 238 physicians and midlevel providers surveyed completed the survey. The majority (78.0%) reported that they would recommend a self-collected HPV test if the test had qualities such as high sensitivity and cost effectiveness. Provider concerns mirrored those of patients, namely ensuring adequate sample collection and the opportunity to address other health concerns.Patients and clinicians are supportive of self-collected HPV testing. However, concerns regarding adequacy of samples that are self collected and the desire to see a provider in a clinic setting for other health needs highlight areas that need to be addressed if self collection proves to be a viable option for cervical cancer screening.
| S-EPMC5512311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:A pilot screening campaign in Rwanda, based on careHPV-testing followed by visual inspection with acetic acid triage (careHPV+VIA triage), was evaluated against other WHO-recommended screening options, namely HPV screen-and-treat and VIA screen-and-treat. METHODS:764 women aged 30-69 underwent at visit 1: i) VIA, and cervical cell collection for ii) careHPV in Rwanda, and iii) liquid-based cytology and GP5+/6+ HR-HPV PCR in The Netherlands. All 177 women positive by VIA, careHPV and/or PCR were recalled, of whom 84% attended. At visit 2, VIA was again used to triage screen-positive women for treatment and to obtain biopsies from all women either from visible lesions or at 12 o'clock of the squamocolumnar junction. Cross-sectional screening indices were estimated primarily against histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (hHSIL+), after imputation of missing histology data, based on 1-visit or 2-visit approaches. RESULTS:In a 1-visit screen-and-treat approach, VIA had sensitivity and specificity of 41% and 96%, respectively, versus 71% and 88% for careHPV, and 88% and 86% for PCR. In a 2-visit approach (in which hHSIL+ imputed among women without visit 2 were considered untreated) careHPV sensitivity dropped to 59% due to loss of 13% of hHSIL+. For careHPV+VIA triage, sensitivity dropped further to 35%, as another 24% of hHSIL+ were triaged to no treatment. CONCLUSIONS:CareHPV was not as sensitive as gold-standard PCR, but detected considerably more hHSIL+ than VIA. However, due to careHPV-positive hHSIL+ women being lost to follow-up and/or triaged to no treatment, 2-visit careHPV+VIA triage did not perform better than VIA screen-and-treat.
| S-EPMC5921370 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is increasingly being used to determine the optimal cervical cancer screening interval in older women. Little is known about women's attitudes toward HPV testing or how these attitudes may influence medical discussions about cervical cancer screening.Preferences for HPV and concomitant Papanicolaou (Pap) testing were assessed through in-person interviews with diverse women aged 50 to 80 years recruited from community and university-based practices.Eight hundred and sixty-five women (257 White, 87 African American, 149 Latina, and 372 Asian) were interviewed. Approximately 60% of participants wanted to be tested for HPV and another 15% would undergo testing if recommended by their physician. Among those wanting HPV testing, 94% would want more frequent than annual Pap tests if they had a positive HPV test and a normal Pap test. Two thirds of those under age 65 would be willing to switch to triennial Pap testing, and half of those aged 65 and older would be willing to discontinue Pap testing, if they had a negative HPV test and normal Pap test. Preferences for testing varied by ethnicity, age, place of birth, and cancer history.The majority of older women were willing to use HPV testing to make decisions about frequency and duration of cervical cancer screening, but up to one third would want at least annual, ongoing screening regardless of HPV test results. Efforts should be made to ensure that HPV testing is used to reinforce appropriate utilization of screening tests.
| S-EPMC2518007 | biostudies-other
Project description:Knowledge about cervical cancer (CC) risk factors and benefits of CC prevention motivates women to participate in its screening. However, several studies show that there is a significant knowledge deficit worldwide about human papillomavirus (HPV). The current study explores the level of knowledge about HPV and CC prevention in the context of sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of women who visited an antenatal clinic in Arkhangelsk, Russia.This cross-sectional study was conducted in the city of Arkhangelsk, which seats the administrative center of Arkhangelsk County, Northwest Russia. It included women who consulted a gynecologist for any reason between January 1, 2015 and April 30, 2015, were residents of Arkhangelsk, 25 to 65 years of age and sexually active (N = 300). Student's t-test for continuous variables and Pearson's ?2 test for categorical variables were used in the comparisons of women grouped as having either poor or sufficient knowledge. Linear regression analysis was also employed.The level of knowledge about HPV and CC prevention was associated with education, parity, age of initiating of intercourse, and sources of information. After adjustment, women with university education were more likely to have higher knowledge about HPV and CC prevention compared to those with lower education.We observed that most participants had a sufficient level of knowledge. Educational gaps were identified that potentially could be used to tailor interventions in CC prevention.
| S-EPMC5728530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore attitudes toward new cervical cancer screening options and understand factors associated with those beliefs among women in routine gynecologic care.We used an interviewer-administered survey of 551 women aged 36-62 years enrolled in the HPV in Perimenopause Study. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare women's preferences for cervical cancer screening methods and frequency.A majority of women (55.6%, 95% CI 51.4-59.8%) were aware that screening recommendations had changed, yet 74.1% (95% CI 70.3-77.7%) still believed women should be screened annually. If recommended by their doctor, 68.4% (95% CI 64.4-72.2%) were willing to extend screening to every 3 years, but only 25.2% (95% CI 21.9-29.2%) would extend screening to 5 years. Most women (60.7%, 95% CI 56.5-65.7%) expressed a strong preference for Pap testing, and 41.4% (95% CI 37.4-45.6%) expressed at least moderate concern over having a human papillomavirus (HPV) test without a Pap test. A desire for more frequent care, higher degree of worry and perceived risk, and abnormal screening history were all associated with reduced willingness to accept HPV testing and longer screening intervals.A majority of routinely screened women indicated a willingness to adopt a cervical cancer screening strategy of cytology alone or Pap-HPV cotesting every 3 years if recommended by their physician. However, they remain concerned about HPV testing and extension of screening intervals to once every 5 years. Our results suggest continued reticence to accepting newer HPV-based screening algorithms among routinely screened women older than age 35 years.
| S-EPMC4304949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The availability of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18 (HPV-16,18) motivates questions about the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in the United States for unvaccinated older women and for girls eligible for vaccination.An empirically calibrated model was used to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2004 US dollars per QALY) of screening, vaccination of preadolescent girls, and vaccination combined with screening. Screening varied by initiation age (18, 21, or 25 years), interval (every 1, 2, 3, or 5 years), and test (HPV DNA testing of cervical specimens or cytologic evaluation of cervical cells with a Pap test). Testing strategies included: 1) cytology followed by HPV DNA testing for equivocal cytologic results (cytology with HPV test triage); 2) HPV DNA testing followed by cytology for positive HPV DNA results (HPV test with cytology triage); and 3) combined HPV DNA testing and cytology. Strategies were permitted to switch once at age 25, 30, or 35 years.For unvaccinated women, triennial cytology with HPV test triage, beginning by age 21 years and switching to HPV testing with cytology triage at age 30 years, cost $78,000 per QALY compared with the next best strategy. For girls vaccinated before age 12 years, this same strategy, beginning at age 25 years and switching at age 35 years, cost $41,000 per QALY with screening every 5 years and $188,000 per QALY screening triennially, each compared with the next best strategy. These strategies were more effective and cost-effective than screening women of all ages with cytology alone or cytology with HPV triage annually or biennially.For both vaccinated and unvaccinated women, age-based screening by use of HPV DNA testing as a triage test for equivocal results in younger women and as a primary screening test in older women is expected to be more cost-effective than current screening recommendations.
| S-EPMC3099548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cervical cancer is a critical public health concern in sub-Saharan Africa. Adolescents are key targets in primary prevention strategies. Following a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination initiative (Gardasil) in Eldoret, Kenya, the knowledge and source of information of cervical cancer and acceptance of prevention strategies among vaccinated and unvaccinated adolescents were evaluated. A cross-sectional comparative study enrolled 60 vaccinated and 120 unvaccinated adolescent women. Institutional ethical approval was obtained and signed consent was obtained from the parents. Data collection was performed using interviewer-administered questionnaires derived from factual statements based on information from print material used for community sensitization on cervical cancer. The median age of the participants was 14.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]?=?13.0-15.0). Of 60 vaccinated adolescents, 56 (93.3%) had heard of the HPV vaccine compared with 6 (5%) of unvaccinated participants (p?<?0.001). Of 60 vaccinated participants, 58 (96.7%) had heard of cervical cancer compared with 61 (50.8%) unvaccinated participants (p?<?0.001). Both cohorts identified the school as the main source of information for cervical cancer. The two groups also showed similarity in their selection of cervical cancer prevention strategies acceptable to them such as delaying sexual debut, limiting number of sexual partners, and use of condoms for protection against sexually transmitted infections. Of 120 unvaccinated participants, 63.7% expressed willingness to be vaccinated. Exposure to the HPV vaccine was associated with a higher knowledge of cervical cancer. The adolescents predominantly rely on the school for health information. Both cohorts of adolescents showed remarkable acceptability for cervical cancer prevention strategies.
| S-EPMC6715544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo provide the first report on the main outcomes from the prevalence and incidence rounds of a large pilot of routine primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in England, compared with contemporaneous primary liquid based cytology screening.DesignObservational study.SettingThe English Cervical Screening Programme.Participants578 547 women undergoing cervical screening in primary care between May 2013 and December 2014, with follow-up until May 2017; 183 970 (32%) were screened with hrHPV testing.InterventionsRoutine cervical screening with hrHPV testing with liquid based cytology triage and two early recalls for women who were hrHPV positive and cytology negative, following the national screening age and interval recommendations.Main outcome measuresFrequency of referral for a colposcopy; adherence to early recall; and relative detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse from hrHPV testing compared with liquid based cytology in two consecutive screening rounds.ResultsBaseline hrHPV testing and early recall required approximately 80% more colposcopies, (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 1.82), but detected substantially more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than liquid based cytology (1.49 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 1.43 to 1.55; 1.44 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, 1.36 to 1.51) and for cervical cancer (1.27, 0.99 to 1.63). Attendance at early recall and colposcopy referral were 80% and 95%, respectively. At the incidence screen, the 33 506 women screened with hrHPV testing had substantially less cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse than the 77 017 women screened with liquid based cytology (0.14, 0.09 to 0.23).ConclusionsIn England, routine primary hrHPV screening increased the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer by approximately 40% and 30%, respectively, compared with liquid based cytology. The very low incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse after three years supports extending the screening interval.
| S-EPMC6364146 | biostudies-literature