Shrutikona Das, Nicolas Wentzensen, George F Sawaya, Didem Egemen, Alexander Locke, Walter Kinney, Thomas Lorey, Li C Cheung
{"title":"Primary human papillomavirus testing vs cotesting: clinical outcomes in populations with different disease prevalence.","authors":"Shrutikona Das, Nicolas Wentzensen, George F Sawaya, Didem Egemen, Alexander Locke, Walter Kinney, Thomas Lorey, Li C Cheung","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Implementation of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been slow in the United States perhaps because of concerns of decreased sensitivity compared with concurrent HPV and cytology testing (\"cotesting\"). We used the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and the Kaiser Permanente of Northern California cohort to quantify potential trade-offs with primary HPV compared with cotesting in 4 US populations with differing precancer or cancer prevalence. In all settings, cotesting required more lab tests and more colposcopies compared with primary HPV testing. Additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer immediately detected from cotesting vs primary HPV decreased with decreasing population-average cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer prevalence from 71 per 100 000 screened among never or rarely screened individuals in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (prevalence = 1212 per 100 000) to 4 per 100 000 screened among individuals with prior HPV-negative results in Kaiser Permanente of Northern California (prevalence = 86 per 100 000). These data suggest that cotesting confer an unfavorable benefit-to-harm ratio over primary HPV testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":14809,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":" ","pages":"1525-1529"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Implementation of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been slow in the United States perhaps because of concerns of decreased sensitivity compared with concurrent HPV and cytology testing ("cotesting"). We used the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and the Kaiser Permanente of Northern California cohort to quantify potential trade-offs with primary HPV compared with cotesting in 4 US populations with differing precancer or cancer prevalence. In all settings, cotesting required more lab tests and more colposcopies compared with primary HPV testing. Additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer immediately detected from cotesting vs primary HPV decreased with decreasing population-average cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer prevalence from 71 per 100 000 screened among never or rarely screened individuals in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (prevalence = 1212 per 100 000) to 4 per 100 000 screened among individuals with prior HPV-negative results in Kaiser Permanente of Northern California (prevalence = 86 per 100 000). These data suggest that cotesting confer an unfavorable benefit-to-harm ratio over primary HPV testing.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a reputable publication that undergoes a peer-review process. It is available in both print (ISSN: 0027-8874) and online (ISSN: 1460-2105) formats, with 12 issues released annually. The journal's primary aim is to disseminate innovative and important discoveries in the field of cancer research, with specific emphasis on clinical, epidemiologic, behavioral, and health outcomes studies. Authors are encouraged to submit reviews, minireviews, and commentaries. The journal ensures that submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous and expedited review to publish scientifically and medically significant findings in a timely manner.