Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme.

ABSTRACT: To compare the short-term and long-term effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP).Nationwide register-based prospective follow-up study.In 2005, the NCCSP implemented HPV testing in follow-up of unsatisfactory, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology.19 065 women with repeat cytology and HPV test after unsatisfactory ASC-US or LSIL screening result in 2005-2009.Through individual registry linkages we observed how women were treated in the regular medical care.We estimated cumulative incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in 6 months and 3 years after repeat cytology and HPV test. Patients diagnosed with CIN2+ in 6 months and 3 years were assessed for initial HPV positivity.5392 had ASC-US/LSIL and 13 673 had normal/unsatisfactory repeat cytology; for HPV detection 4715 used AMPLICOR HPV Test (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), 9162 Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) High-Risk HPV DNA Test (QIAGEN, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) and 5188 PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip, Klokkarstua, Norway). Among those with ASC-US/LSIL repeat cytology, 3-year risk of CIN2+ was 15-fold in Amplicor/HC2-positives compared with Amplicor/HC2-negatives and sevenfold in Proofer-positives compared with Proofer-negatives; a 3-year risk of CIN2+ was 2.1% (95% CI 0.7% to 3.4%) in Amplicor-negatives and 7.2% (95% CI 5.4% to 8.9%) in Proofer-negatives. Close to 100% of patients with CIN2+ diagnosed within 6 months tested positive to HPV (all methods). Considering all patients diagnosed with CIN2+ in 3-year follow-up, 97% were initially positive in the Amplicor group and more than 94% in the HC2 group, compared with less than 80% in the Proofer group.While the long-term evaluation of new screening routines showed a good overall performance of triage-HPV DNA testing, the management of HPV-negative women with persistent ASC-US/LSIL was suboptimal.

SUBMITTER: Nygard M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3902315 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme.

Nygård Mari M Røysland Kjetil K Campbell Suzanne S Dillner Joakim J

BMJ open 20140108 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the short-term and long-term effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme (NCCSP).<h4>Design</h4>Nationwide register-based prospective follow-up study.<h4>Setting</h4>In 2005, the NCCSP implemented HPV testing in follow-up of unsatisfactory, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology.<h4>Participants</h4>19 065 women with repeat cyto ...[more]

PMID: 24401720

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials have shown a higher sensitivity and longer negative predictive value of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing than cytology for cervical cancer screening; however, little is known about the effectiveness of HPV testing in middle-income countries. Understanding the characteristics of HPV testing may increase the priority of HPV testing in health policies. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of HPV testing in the national cervical cancer screening programme in China.MethodsWe performed a nationwide, population-based study using individual data from the national cervical cancer screening programme in rural China between 2015 and 2017. The analyses included 1,160,981 women aged 35-64 years who underwent cytology alone or high-risk HPV testing with cytology or genotyping triage. The main outcome was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+). We used multivariate logistic regressions and performed sensitivity analyses with propensity score matching to compare the screening positive, colposcopy referral, detection rate, and positive predictive value (PPV).ResultsThe screening positive rates for HPV testing and cytology were 10.1% and 4.0%, respectively. The per protocol colposcopy referral rate of HPV testing was significantly lower than that of cytology (3.5% vs 4.0%), and this difference was mostly due to the low referral threshold of cytology (≥ASC-US). Overall, HPV testing detected more CIN2+ (5.5 vs. 4.4 per 1000, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.25) and had a higher PPV (13.8% vs 10.9%, aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21-1.37) than cytology. The colposcopy referrals of HPV testing in comparison to cytology differed by income status; it significantly increased in lower-middle-income areas (3.7% vs 3.1%, aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17-1.25) and significantly decreased in upper-middle-income areas (3.4% vs 4.9%, aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the reliability and robustness of the results.ConclusionsThe introduction of HPV testing could improve both the CIN2+ detection rate and efficiency of cervical cancer screening programme, supporting the introduction of primary screening with high-risk HPV testing in China. Further study is needed to investigate the long-term effect of this change.

Project description:ObjectiveTo measure the effectiveness of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against cervical abnormalities four years after implementation of a nationally funded vaccination programme in Queensland, Australia.DesignCase-control analysis of linked administrative health datasets.SettingQueensland, Australia.ParticipantsWomen eligible for free vaccination (aged 12-26 years in 2007) and attending for their first cervical smear test between April 2007 and March 2011. High grade cases were women with histologically confirmed high grade cervical abnormalities (n = 1062) and "other cases" were women with any other abnormality at cytology or histology (n = 10,887). Controls were women with normal cytology (n = 96,404).Main outcome measuresExposure odds ratio (ratio of odds of antecedent vaccination (one, two, or three vaccine doses compared with no doses) among cases compared with controls), vaccine effectiveness ((1-adjusted odds ratio) × 100), and number needed to vaccinate to prevent one cervical abnormality at first screening round. We stratified by four age groups adjusted for follow-up time, year of birth, and measures of socioeconomic status and remoteness. The primary analysis concerned women whose first ever smear test defined their status as a case or a control.ResultsThe adjusted odds ratio for exposure to three doses of HPV vaccine compared with no vaccine was 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.67) for high grade cases and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.70) for other cases compared with controls with normal cytology, equating to vaccine effectiveness of 46% and 34%, respectively. The adjusted numbers needed to vaccinate were 125 (95% confidence interval 97 to 174) and 22 (19 to 25), respectively. The adjusted exposure odds ratios for two vaccine doses were 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.98) for high grade cases and 0.79 (0.74 to 0.85) for other cases, equating to vaccine effectiveness of 21%.ConclusionThe quadrivalent HPV vaccine conferred statistically significant protection against cervical abnormalities in young women who had not started screening before the implementation of the vaccination programme in Queensland, Australia.

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.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets