PRIME PubMed
Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter
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
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Electronic address: diedeloopik@hotmail.com.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; PALGA Foundation, Houten, the Netherlands.
Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
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 -