Dataset Information

Accuracy of urinary human papillomavirus testing for presence of cervical HPV: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the accuracy of testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in urine in detecting cervical HPV in sexually active women.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases from inception until December 2013, checks of reference lists, manual searches of recent issues of relevant journals, and contact with experts.

Eligibility criteria

Test accuracy studies in sexually active women that compared detection of urine HPV DNA with detection of cervical HPV DNA.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data relating to patient characteristics, study context, risk of bias, and test accuracy. 2 × 2 tables were constructed and synthesised by bivariate mixed effects meta-analysis.

Results

16 articles reporting on 14 studies (1443 women) were eligible for meta-analysis. Most used commercial polymerase chain reaction methods on first void urine samples. Urine detection of any HPV had a pooled sensitivity of 87% (95% confidence interval 78% to 92%) and specificity of 94% (95% confidence interval 82% to 98%). Urine detection of high risk HPV had a pooled sensitivity of 77% (68% to 84%) and specificity of 88% (58% to 97%). Urine detection of HPV 16 and 18 had a pooled sensitivity of 73% (56% to 86%) and specificity of 98% (91% to 100%). Metaregression revealed an increase in sensitivity when urine samples were collected as first void compared with random or midstream (P=0.004).

Limitations

The major limitations of this review are the lack of a strictly uniform method for the detection of HPV in urine and the variation in accuracy between individual studies.

Conclusions

Testing urine for HPV seems to have good accuracy for the detection of cervical HPV, and testing first void urine samples is more accurate than random or midstream sampling. When cervical HPV detection is considered difficult in particular subgroups, urine testing should be regarded as an acceptable alternative.

SUBMITTER: Pathak N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4166201 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study sought to systematically analyze the clinical diagnostic value of tumor markers combined with ThinPrep cytologic test (TCT) and human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) detection for cervical cancer and pre-cancerous lesions. However, there is a lot of controversy in the field of TCT + HPV-DNA. Many people have mixed opinions on the accuracy of TCT + HPV-DNA, and there is no unified opinion. Therefore, it is necessary to further confirm the significance of this combined detection method in the early diagnosis of cervical cancer by applying meta method.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) databases were searched to retrieve studies. To assess the methodological quality of each study and potential risk of bias, QUADAS-2 Guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of all articles that met the inclusion criteria and data extraction of the included articles were performed, and a meta-analysis was performed of the included studies using Review Manager 5.2 software.ResultsA total of 5 studies were included in the study, and a total of 2,778 patients were included in the study, and there was no significant publication bias observed. The meta-analysis showed that there was a statistical difference in terms of the accuracy of the tumor markers combined with TCT in the detection of cervical cancer. The results were as follows: the pooled sensitivity (SEN) was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93); the combined specificity (SPE) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.57-0.92); the diagnostic performance of combined with thin-layer liquid-based cytology and HPV DNA detection in the diagnosis accuracy of cervical cancer by summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis, result showed excellent diagnostic accuracy, with a combined area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92).DiscussionTumor markers are important for the early diagnosis of cervical cancer. Combining the tumor markers with TCT and HPV DNA detection effectively improved the detection rate.

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.

Project description:IntroductionHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is necessary but not sufficient for cervical cancer development. During cervical carcinogenesis, methylation levels increase across host and HPV DNA. DNA methylation has been proposed as a test to diagnose cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); we present a protocol to evaluate the accuracy of methylation markers to detect high-grade CIN and cervical cancer.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library), from inception, to identify studies examining DNA methylation as a diagnostic marker for CIN or cervical cancer, in a cervical screening population. The primary outcome will be to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of host and HPV DNA methylation for high-grade CIN; the secondary outcomes will be to examine the accuracy of different methylation cut-off thresholds, and accuracy in high-risk HPV positive women. Our reference standard will be histology. We will perform meta-analyses using Cochrane guidelines for diagnostic test accuracy. We will use the number of true positives, false negatives, true negatives and false positives from individual studies. We will use the bivariate mixed effect model to estimate sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs; we will employ different bivariate models to estimate sensitivity and specificity at different thresholds if sufficient data per threshold. For insufficient data, the hierarchical summary receiver operating curve model will be used to calculate a summary curve across thresholds. If there is interstudy and intrastudy variation in thresholds, we will use a linear mixed effects model to calculate the optimum threshold. If few studies are available, we will simplify models by assuming no correlation between sensitivity and specificity and perform univariate, random-effects meta-analysis. We will assess the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated to academic beneficiaries, medical practitioners, patients and the public.Prospero registration numberCRD42022299760.