American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology Screening Guidelines for the Prevention and Early Detection of Cervical Cancer

Saslow, Debbie; Solomon, Diane; Lawson, Herschel W.; Killackey, Maureen; Kulasingam, Shalini; Cain, Joanna M.; García, Francisco; Moriarty, Ann; Waxman, Alan G.; Wilbur, David C.; Wentzensen, Nicolas; Downs, Levi S.; Spitzer, Mark; Moscicki, Anna Barbara; Franco, Eduardo L.; Stoler, Mark H.; Schiffman, Mark; Castle, Philip E.; Myers, Evan R.

doi:10.1309/ajcptgd94evrsjcg

Cited by 947 publications

(1,044 citation statements)

References 158 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

978

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cervical cancer is a disease that progresses gradually from HPV infection, which includes cytologic (e.g., low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and histologic (CIN1) manifestations, to cervical precancer, best represented by CIN3, and finally to invasive cervical cancer over a period of time approximately 20 to 25 years on average (24). We wanted to see whether different clinical performances and cutoff points could be found in women with different age groups without the interference from the disease prevalence (25).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Positive Cutoff Points for careHPV Testing of Clinician- and Self-Collected Specimens in Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: an Analysis from Rural China

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

d careHPV, a lower-cost DNA test for human papillomavirus (HPV), is being considered for cervical cancer screening in low-and middle-income countries. However, not a single large-scaled study exists to investigate the optimal positive cutoff point of careHPV test. We pooled data for 9,785 women participating in two individual studies conducted from 2007 to 2011 in rural China. Woman underwent multiple screening tests, including careHPV on clinician-collected specimens (careHPV-C) and selfcollected specimens (careHPV-S), and Hybrid Capture 2 on clinician-collected specimens (HC2-C) as a reference standard. The primary endpoint was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe (CIN3؉) (n ‫؍‬ 127), and secondary endpoint was CIN2؉ (n ‫؍‬ 213). The area under the curves (AUCs) for HC2-C and careHPV-C were similar (0.954 versus 0.948, P ‫؍‬ 0.166), and better than careHPV-S (0.878; P < 0.001 versus both). The optimal positive cutoff points for HC2-C, careHPV-C, and careHPV-S were 1.40, 1.74, and 0.85, respectively. At the same cutoff point, careHPV-C was not significantly less sensitive and more specific for CIN3؉ than HC2-C, and careHPV-S was significantly less sensitive for CIN3؉ than careHPV-C and HC2-C. Raising the cutoff point of careHPV-C from 1.0 to 2.0 could result in nonsignificantly lower sensitivity but significantly higher specificity. Similar results were observed using CIN2؉ endpoint. careHPV using either clinician-or self-collected specimens performed well in detecting cervical precancer and cancer. We found that the optimal cutoff points of careHPV were 2.0 on clinician-collected specimens and 1.0 on self-collected specimens.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimal Positive Cutoff Points for careHPV Testing of Clinician- and Self-Collected Specimens in Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: an Analysis from Rural China

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previously, partial genotyping for HPV16 and 18 has been studied as a triage method in association with cytology 6, 10. This strategy has already been included in the American multi‐societal and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines 12, 13. Here, we report the accuracy of stand‐alone genotyping as a triage test.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross‐sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more

Mistro

Adcock

Carozzi

et al. 2018

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human papilloma virus (HPV) testing is more sensitive but less specific than cytology. We evaluated stand‐alone genotyping as a possible triage method. During a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HPV testing to conventional cytology, HPV‐positive women were referred to colposcopy and followed up if no high‐grade lesion was detected. HPV‐positive samples were genotyped by GP5+/GP6+ primed polymerase chain reaction followed by reverse line blot. Genotypes were hierarchically ordered by positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN grade 2 or more (CIN2+), and grouped by cluster analysis into three groups (A, B and C in decreasing order). Receiver operating characteristic curves were computed. Among 2,255 HPV‐positive women with genotyping, 239 CIN2+ (including 113 CIN3+) were detected at baseline or during a 3‐year follow‐up. HPV33 had the highest PPV with CIN2+ and CIN3+ as the endpoint and when considering lesions detected at baseline or also during follow‐up. HPV16 and HPV35 were the second and third, respectively. Cross‐sectional sensitivity for CIN2+ at baseline was 67.3% (95% CI 59.7–74.2), 91.8% (95% CI 86.6–95.5) and 94.7% (95% CI 90.2–97.6), respectively, when considering as “positive” any of the HPV types in group A (33, 16 and 35), A or B (31, 52, 18, 59 and 58) and A or B or C (39, 51, 56, 45 and 68). The corresponding cross‐sectional PPVs for CIN2+ were 15.8% 95% (CI 13.2–18.7), 12.0% (95% CI 10.3–13.9) and 9.6% (95% CI 8.2–11.1), respectively. HPV33, 16 and 35 confer a high probability of CIN2+ but this rapidly decreases when adding other genotypes.

show abstract

“…In certain settings, HPV testing has been used as an adjuvant to cytology, and many guidelines include and recommend such use [5]. However, replacement of routine cytological screening by HPV NATs has been a matter of passionate debates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of HPV Molecular Tests in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer in Brazil

Levi¹,

Longatto‐Filho²,

Eluf‐Neto³

et al. 2014

OJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

J. E. Levi et al. 471consisted of 2464 subjects under routine screening. Cervical samples were collected using SurePath liquid cytology (LBC) device, and split into aliquots which were submitted to molecular testing by Hybrid Capture and cobas HPV. Colposcopy and biopsies were made according to the standard guidelines, directed by cytological diagnosis. Results: Prevalence of HSIL was 5.97% and 0.7% in Group A and B respectively. High-Risk HPV DNA was found in about 9% of group B women, while in group A this frequency was 24%. Having CIN3+ as the study end-point, the negative predictive values for molecular methods were above 99.8%. All "in-situ" and invasive cervical carcinomas were detected by both HPV nucleic acid assays. Conclusion: Use of HPV DNA testing was feasible and highly sensitive in cancer screening settings of Brazil.

show abstract

American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology Screening Guidelines for the Prevention and Early Detection of Cervical Cancer

Cited by 947 publications

References 158 publications

Optimal Positive Cutoff Points for careHPV Testing of Clinician- and Self-Collected Specimens in Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: an Analysis from Rural China

Optimal Positive Cutoff Points for careHPV Testing of Clinician- and Self-Collected Specimens in Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: an Analysis from Rural China

Human papilloma virus genotyping for the cross‐sectional and longitudinal probability of developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more

Evaluation of HPV Molecular Tests in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer in Brazil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About