programas cribado cancer

Nota bibliográfica cribado c cérvix 2013-05

Patanwala IY, Bauer HM, Miyamoto J, Park IU, Huchko MJ, Smith-McCune KK. A systematic review of randomized trials assessing human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013 May;208(5):343-353. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.013; PMID:23159693.
Our objective was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening in randomized trials. We conducted a systematic literature search of the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Eligible studies were randomized trials comparing HPV-based to cytology-based screening strategies, with disease status determined by colposcopy/biopsy for participants with positive results. Disease rates (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]2 or greater and CIN3 or greater), sensitivity, and positive predictive value were abstracted or calculated from the articles. Six studies met inclusion criteria. Relative sensitivities for detecting CIN3 or greater of HPV testing-based strategies vs cytology ranged from 0.8 to 2.1. The main limitation of our study was that testing methodologies and screening/management protocols were highly variable across studies. Screening strategies in which a single initial HPV-positive test led to colposcopy were more sensitive than cytology but resulted in higher colposcopy rates. These results have implications for cotesting with HPV and cytology as recommended in the United States.

Malila N, Leinonen M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Laurila P, Tarkkanen J, Hakama M. The HPV test has similar sensitivity but more overdiagnosis than the Pap test--a randomised health services study on cervical cancer screening in Finland. Int J Cancer 2013 May 1;132(9):2141-2147. DOI:10.1002/ijc.27850; 10.1002/ijc.27850. PMID:22987601.

We compared test sensitivity (in terms of prevented cancers) and overdiagnosis (in terms of non-progressive pre-invasive lesions) between the human papillomavirus test (HPV test, Hybrid Capture 2) and the traditional Pap test in routine screening for cervical cancer. The design was a randomised (1:1) health services study in Finland with intake between 2003 and 2007. We estimated sensitivity by the incidence method within one screening round. Overdiagnosis was based on the rate of cervical intraepithelial Grade 3 (CIN3) lesions diagnosed at screen and during the following interval. Out of 203,788 randomised women 132,298 attended (65% in both study arms) and 600,753 person-years accumulated among attenders up to the end of 2010. In all attenders, 34 invasive cervical cancers and 288 CIN3 lesions were diagnosed at screen or during the following interval. The interval cancer incidence was 2.5/10(5) person-years (sensitivity 0.87) and 1.4 (sensitivity 0.93) in the HPV arm and Pap test arm, respectively. The rate of CIN3 lesions was 57.1 and 38.8, respectively. In conclusion, sensitivity of HPV testing was similar to that of Pap testing but caused more overdiagnosis. Therefore, implementation of HPV testing needs to be reconsidered especially in countries with well organised programmes.

Lonnberg S, Nieminen P, Luostarinen T, Anttila A. Mortality audit of the Finnish cervical cancer screening program. Int J Cancer 2013 May 1;132(9):2134-2140. DOI:10.1002/ijc.27844; PMID:22987437.
Incidence-based evaluations of cervical cancer screening programs have suggested age-specific impacts and there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of screening outside the ages of 30-60 years. We audited the screening histories of cervical cancer deaths and conducted a case-control evaluation of the effectiveness of organized screening in different ages with mortality as outcome. We included all 506 cervical cancer deaths in Finland in 2000-2009 due to cancers diagnosed in 1990 or later, and 3,036 controls matched by age at diagnosis to the cases. Squamous cell carcinoma constituted 59% of the cases, adenocarcinomas 29%, and the remaining 12% were other specified and unspecified cervical malignancies. Most deaths (54%) were due to cancers diagnosed more than 5 years after last screening invitation, 24% were diagnosed among nonattenders and only 14% of deaths occurred among women who had attended invitational screening. The risk reduction associated with attending a single program screen at an age below 40 was nonsignificant (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.33-1.48), while clear risk reductions were observed after screening at the age of 40-54 (OR 0.33; CI 0.20-0.56) and 55-69 (OR 0.29; CI 0.16-0.54). This study also provides some indication of a long-lasting additional effect of screening at the age of 65. Possible avenues for improving the effectiveness of the Finnish screening program include efforts to increase attendance and an extension of the target ages to include 65-to 69-year-old women. The potential benefit of increasing the sensitivity of the screening test or shortening the screening interval is smaller.

Snijders PJ, Verhoef VM, Arbyn M, Ogilvie G, Minozzi S, Banzi R, et al. High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2013 May 15;132(10):2223-2236. DOI:10.1002/ijc.27790; PMID:22907569.

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling, i.e., offering self-sampling of (cervico-)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician-taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self-sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self-samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician-obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self- and clinician-sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non-attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self-sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re-attracting original non-attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self-testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self-sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology-based call-recall programs.
web desarrollada y mantenida por :