PRIME PubMed | Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening program (2024)

PRIME PubMed

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

PRIME PubMed | Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancerscreening program (1)

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the Dutch cervical cancer screening program had replaced the primary cytology-based screening with primary high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening, including the opportunity to participate through self-sampling. Evaluation and balancing benefit (detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) and burden of screening (unnecessary referrals, invasive diagnostics, and overtreatment) is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the referral rates, detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment in the new high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening program, including physician-sampled and self-sampled material, with the previous cytology-based screening program in the Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was conducted within the Dutch population-based cervical cancer screening program. Screenees with referrals for colposcopy between 2014 and 2015 (cytology-based screening) and 2017 and 2018 (high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening) were included. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and compared between the 2 screening programs. The main outcome measures were referral rate, detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse, overdiagnosis (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less in the histologic specimen), and overtreatment (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less in the treatment specimen).

RESULTS

Of the women included in the study, 19,109 received cytology-based screening, and 26,171 received high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening. Referral rates increased from 2.5% in cytology-based screening to 4.2% in high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening (+70.2%). Detection rates increased to 46.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 32.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, and 31.0% for cervical cancer, and overdiagnosis increased to 143.4% with high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening. Overtreatment rates were similar in both screening periods. The positive predictive value of referral for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening was 34.6% compared with 40.2% in cytology-based screening. Women screened through self-sampling were at higher risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse detection (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.59) and receiving treatment (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.48) than those screened through physician-sampling.

CONCLUSION

Compared with cytology-based screening, high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, with 462 more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse cases per 100,000 women but at the expense of 850 more cases per 100,000 women with invasive diagnostics indicating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Loopik DL

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: diedeloopik@hotmail.com.

Koenjer LM

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Siebers AG

Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; PALGA Foundation, Houten, the Netherlands.

Melchers WJG

Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Bekkers RLM

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

MeSH

AdultAtypical Squamous Cells of the CervixBiopsyColposcopyEarly Detection of CancerElectrosurgeryFemaleHumansMedical OveruseMiddle AgedNetherlandsPapanicolaou TestPapillomavirus InfectionsReferral and ConsultationSelf CareSpecimen HandlingSquamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the CervixUterine Cervical Neoplasmsvagin*l SmearsUterine Cervical Dysplasia

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32800820

Citation

Loopik, Diede L., et al. "Benefit and Burden in the Dutch Cytology-based Vs High-risk Human Papillomavirus-based Cervical Cancerscreening Program." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 224, no. 2, 2021, pp. 200.e1-200.e9.

Loopik DL, Koenjer LM, Siebers AG, et al. Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancerscreening program. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):200.e1-200.e9.

Loopik, D. L., Koenjer, L. M., Siebers, A. G., Melchers, W. J. G., & Bekkers, R. L. M. (2021). Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancerscreening program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 224(2), e1-e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.026

Loopik DL, et al. Benefit and Burden in the Dutch Cytology-based Vs High-risk Human Papillomavirus-based Cervical Cancerscreening Program. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(2):200.e1-200.e9. PubMed PMID: 32800820.

* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case

TY - JOURT1 - Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancerscreening program.AU - Loopik,Diede L,AU - Koenjer,Lisanne M,AU - Siebers,Albert G,AU - Melchers,Willem J G,AU - Bekkers,Ruud L M,Y1 - 2020/08/13/PY - 2020/4/22/receivedPY - 2020/7/16/revisedPY - 2020/8/11/acceptedPY - 2020/8/18/pubmedPY - 2021/2/17/medlinePY - 2020/8/18/entrezKW - cervical intraepithelial neoplasiaKW - cervical smearKW - colposcopyKW - overdiagnosisKW - overtreatmentKW - population screeningSP - 200.e1EP - 200.e9JF - American journal of obstetrics and gynecologyJO - Am J Obstet GynecolVL - 224IS - 2N2 - BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Dutch cervical cancer screening program had replaced the primary cytology-based screening with primary high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening, including the opportunity to participate through self-sampling. Evaluation and balancing benefit (detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) and burden of screening (unnecessary referrals, invasive diagnostics, and overtreatment) is needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the referral rates, detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment in the new high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening program, including physician-sampled and self-sampled material, with the previous cytology-based screening program in the Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted within the Dutch population-based cervical cancer screening program. Screenees with referrals for colposcopy between 2014 and 2015 (cytology-based screening) and 2017 and 2018 (high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening) were included. Data were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and compared between the 2 screening programs. The main outcome measures were referral rate, detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse, overdiagnosis (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less in the histologic specimen), and overtreatment (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less in the treatment specimen). RESULTS: Of the women included in the study, 19,109 received cytology-based screening, and 26,171 received high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening. Referral rates increased from 2.5% in cytology-based screening to 4.2% in high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening (+70.2%). Detection rates increased to 46.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 32.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, and 31.0% for cervical cancer, and overdiagnosis increased to 143.4% with high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening. Overtreatment rates were similar in both screening periods. The positive predictive value of referral for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse in high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening was 34.6% compared with 40.2% in cytology-based screening. Women screened through self-sampling were at higher risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse detection (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.59) and receiving treatment (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.48) than those screened through physician-sampling. CONCLUSION: Compared with cytology-based screening, high-risk human papillomavirus-based screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, with 462 more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse cases per 100,000 women but at the expense of 850 more cases per 100,000 women with invasive diagnostics indicating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or less. SN - 1097-6868UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32800820/Benefit_and_burden_in_the_Dutch_cytology_based_vs_high_risk_human_papillomavirus_based_cervical_cancerscreening_program_DB - PRIMEDP - Unbound MedicineER -

PRIME PubMed | Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening program (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Lidia Grady

Last Updated:

Views: 5903

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (45 voted)

Reviews: 84% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Lidia Grady

Birthday: 1992-01-22

Address: Suite 493 356 Dale Fall, New Wanda, RI 52485

Phone: +29914464387516

Job: Customer Engineer

Hobby: Cryptography, Writing, Dowsing, Stand-up comedy, Calligraphy, Web surfing, Ghost hunting

Introduction: My name is Lidia Grady, I am a thankful, fine, glamorous, lucky, lively, pleasant, shiny person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.