PCR-reverse dot blot human papillomavirus genotyping as a primary screening test for cervical cancer in a hospital-based cohort.
Adult
Aged
Case-Control Studies
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Feasibility Studies
Female
Genotype
Genotyping Techniques
Humans
Mass Screening
/ methods
Middle Aged
Molecular Typing
/ methods
Papillomaviridae
/ classification
Papillomavirus Infections
/ complications
Polymerase Chain Reaction
/ methods
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Young Adult
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
/ diagnosis
Cancer Screening
Cervical Cancer
Cytology
Genotype
Papillomaviridae
Journal
Journal of gynecologic oncology
ISSN: 2005-0399
Titre abrégé: J Gynecol Oncol
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101483150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
04
05
2018
revised:
24
10
2018
accepted:
13
11
2018
entrez:
20
3
2019
pubmed:
20
3
2019
medline:
28
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-reverse-dot-blot (RDB) human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping test as a feasible assay for the cervical cancer primary screening. In a hospital-based cohort, a total of 21,568 women were voluntarily enrolled from March 2009 to November 2016 for evaluating the 3 current cervical cancer screening strategies: co-test, cytology primary and high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) primary by using PCR-RDB HPV genotyping and liquid-based cytology (thinprep cytologic test [TCT]). Women with HR-HPV infection and/or abnormal cytology were referred for colposcopy, and the biopsy or conization was performed according to the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) guidelines. Overall, 18.20% (3,935/21,568) of the women were detected as HR-HPV-positive, 5.04% (1,088/21,568) were diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or higher (CIN2+), and 3.43% (739/21,568) with CIN3+. The cumulative incidence rates for CIN2+/CIN3+ in patients with HPV-16/18-positive were 48.28%/37.20%, while they were 0.86%/0.38%, 0.30%/0.15% and 0.18%/0.09% in cytology-negative, HR-HPV-negative and co-test-negative population, respectively. Using CIN2+ and CIN3+ as the observed endpoints, the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of HR-HPV genotyping as a primary screening tool were 90.99%/99.49% and 91.57%/99.80%. Moreover, using HR-HPV genotyping primary screening could detect the same more CIN2+/CIN3+ cases in baseline-detection as co-testing (990/700 vs. 991/701) and far more than cytology primary screening (903/656, p<0.05). It also achieved the lowest misdiagnosis rate (8.01%/5.02%). Although HPV genotyping primary screening required an increased number of colposcopies (2.75/3.89 per CIN2+/CIN3+ case), it yielded an acceptable rate. The PCR-RDB HPV genotyping test is a cost-effective and beneficial cervical cancer primary screening for hospital-based opportunistic screening.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30887754
pii: 30.e29
doi: 10.3802/jgo.2019.30.e29
pmc: PMC6424850
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e29Subventions
Organisme : Fujian Provincial Healthy Innovation Project
ID : 2009-CXB-33
Pays : China
Organisme : Fujian Provincial Key Projects in Science and Technology
ID : 2015YZ0002
Pays : China
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
J Clin Pathol. 2002 Apr;55(4):244-65
pubmed: 11919208
Acta Cytol. 1991 Jan-Feb;35(1):8-14
pubmed: 1994641
Natl Med J India. 2009 Jul-Aug;22(4):183-4
pubmed: 20120992
Ann Oncol. 2010 Mar;21(3):448-58
pubmed: 20176693
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Nov;11(11):1048-56
pubmed: 20952254
Int J Cancer. 2011 Jun 15;128(12):2765-74
pubmed: 21207409
Am J Clin Pathol. 2011 Mar;135(3):468-75
pubmed: 21350104
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Nov 15;155(10):687-97, W214-5
pubmed: 22006930
Br J Cancer. 2012 Feb 28;106(5):975-81
pubmed: 22251922
BMJ. 2012 Mar 01;344:e900
pubmed: 22381677
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2012 Jul;16(3):175-204
pubmed: 22418039
CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 May-Jun;62(3):147-72
pubmed: 22422631
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Nov;120(5):1222-38
pubmed: 23090560
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Dec;120(6):1465-71
pubmed: 23168774
Vaccine. 2012 Nov 20;30 Suppl 5:F88-99
pubmed: 23199969
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Feb;25(1):11-6
pubmed: 23299089
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Apr;22(4):553-60
pubmed: 23549399
Lancet. 2013 Sep 7;382(9895):889-99
pubmed: 23618600
Eur J Cancer. 2013 Oct;49(15):3262-73
pubmed: 23751569
Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 26;111(5):965-9
pubmed: 24992581
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Feb;13(1):95-107
pubmed: 25385310
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Sep;8(9):OC26-30
pubmed: 25386491
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Feb;136(2):178-82
pubmed: 25579107
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Feb;136(2):189-97
pubmed: 25579108
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2015;80(3):153-63
pubmed: 25832290
Oncologist. 2015 Jun;20(6):627-34
pubmed: 25956407
BMJ. 2015 Jun 30;350:h2372
pubmed: 26126623
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140336
pubmed: 26469982
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Mar-Apr;66(2):115-32
pubmed: 26808342
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 23;11(6):e0158184
pubmed: 27336913
Oncotarget. 2016 Sep 20;7(38):62411-62424
pubmed: 27566561
J Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Sep;28(5):e50
pubmed: 28657218
Exp Ther Med. 2018 Jan;15(1):412-418
pubmed: 29375696
Cancer Control. 2018 Jan-Mar;25(1):1073274818775356
pubmed: 29761723
Cancer Manag Res. 2018 Sep 04;10:3227-3235
pubmed: 30233239
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Sep;36(9):2708-13
pubmed: 9705418