Cervical cancer: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert Badgett
(→‎Effectiveness of screening: Fixed bad PMID in reference)
imported>Robert Badgett
Line 4: Line 4:
===Accuracy of screening tests===
===Accuracy of screening tests===
====Papanicolaou smear====
====Papanicolaou smear====
A [[systematic review]] of available studies found the follow results.<ref name="pmid18165406">{{cite journal |author=Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J |title=Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |journal=Obstet Gynecol |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=167–177 |year=2008 |pmid=18165406 |doi=10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3 |issn=}}</ref>
A [[systematic review]] of available studies for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse found the follow results.<ref name="pmid18165406">{{cite journal |author=Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J |title=Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |journal=Obstet Gynecol |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=167–177 |year=2008 |pmid=18165406 |doi=10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3 |issn=}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Ability to detect ASCUS or worse.<ref name="pmid18165406"/>
|+ Ability to detect ASCUS or worse.<ref name="pmid18165406"/>
Line 16: Line 16:
|}
|}


A more recent study of the convention method reported very similar results:<ref name="pmid17942871">{{cite journal |author=Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, ''et al'' |title=Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer |journal=N. Engl. J. Med. |volume=357 |issue=16 |pages=1579–88 |year=2007 |pmid=17942871 |doi=10.1056/NEJMoa071430|url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/16/1579}}</ref>
A more recent study of the conventional method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 reported very similar results:<ref name="pmid17942871">{{cite journal |author=Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, ''et al'' |title=Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer |journal=N. Engl. J. Med. |volume=357 |issue=16 |pages=1579–88 |year=2007 |pmid=17942871 |doi=10.1056/NEJMoa071430|url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/16/1579}}</ref>
* [[sensitivity (tests)|sensitivity]] 55%
* [[sensitivity (tests)|sensitivity]] 55%
* [[specificity (tests)|specificity]] 94%
* [[specificity (tests)|specificity]] 94%

Revision as of 23:04, 10 March 2008

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Screening

Accuracy of screening tests

Papanicolaou smear

A systematic review of available studies for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse found the follow results.[1]

Ability to detect ASCUS or worse.[1]
ASCUS or worse High grade or worse
sensitivity specificity sensitivity specificity
Conventional method 88% 71% 55% 97%
Liquid-based thin prep 88% 71% 57% 97%

A more recent study of the conventional method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 reported very similar results:[2]

Human papillomavirus testing

Combined testing

If either the Papanicolaou smear or Human papillomavirus testing are abnormal:

Effectiveness of screening

In a randomized controlled trial, the addition of Human papillomavirus testing to screening for cervical cancer "reduces the incidence of grade 2 or 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer detected by subsequent screening examinations."[3]

In another randomized controlled trial, the addition of Human papillomavirus testing to screening for cervical cancer led to earlier detection of CIN3+ lesions.[4]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J (2008). "Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". Obstet Gynecol 111 (1): 167–177. DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3. PMID 18165406. Research Blogging.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al (2007). "Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 357 (16): 1579–88. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa071430. PMID 17942871. Research Blogging.
  3. Naucler P, Ryd W, Törnberg S, et al (2007). "Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 357 (16): 1589–97. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa073204. PMID 17942872. Research Blogging.
  4. Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, et al (2007). "Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial". Lancet 370 (9601): 1764–72. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61450-0. PMID 17919718. Research Blogging.