Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

The clinical performance of primary HPV screening, primary HPV screening plus cytology cotesting, and cytology alone at a tertiary care hospital

Authors
Choi, Jung-WooKim, YounghyeLee, Ju-HanKim, Young-Sik
Issue Date
2월-2016
Publisher
WILEY
Keywords
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; genotype; human papillomavirus (HPV); real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR); screening
Citation
CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, v.124, no.2, pp.144 - 152
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY
Volume
124
Number
2
Start Page
144
End Page
152
URI
https://scholar.korea.ac.kr/handle/2021.sw.korea/89698
DOI
10.1002/cncy.21632
ISSN
1934-662X
Abstract
BACKGROUNDAlgorithms for primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening, primary HPV screening plus cytology cotesting, and cytology alone were evaluated previously in large cohort trials for cervical cancer detection, although the quality of cytology in those studies was controversial. To investigate whether these 3 algorithms would be applicable in routine practice at a tertiary care hospital, the authors compared their clinical performance. In addition, the prevalence of HPV genotypes was determined. METHODSCervical cytology samples (n=1000) were tested using liquid-based cytology (LBC), a nucleic acid hybridization assay, real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis, and direct HPV DNA sequencing. The clinical performance of the 3 algorithms was compared among women in different age groups (age range, 17-86 years; median age, 44.7 years). RESULTSFor cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), the sensitivity of primary HPV screening alone, cotesting, and LBC alone was 71.7%, 72.5%, and 63.8%, respectively; whereas the specificity was 87.5%, 96.5%, and 97.4%, respectively. Cotesting and LBC alone had slightly higher positive predictive values for CIN 2+(97.8% and 98.9%, respectively) than primary HPV screening alone (91%), whereas primary HPV screening alone and cotesting demonstrated higher negative predictive values (63.6% and 62.5%, respectively) than LBC alone (43.2%). High-risk HPV types were detected in 24.3% of individuals. The most common type was HPV type 16 (HPV-16) followed by multiple HPV infections and HPV-58, HPV-52, HPV-31, HPV-35, HPV-51, HPV-39, HPV-56, HPV-33, HPV-18, HPV-59, and HPV-45. CONCLUSIONSPrimary HPV screening alone in a tertiary care hospital demonstrated a performance that was equivalent to that of cotesting for CIN 2+, irrespective of patient age. With regard to the distribution of HPV genotypes, the nonavalent HPV vaccine would prevent approximately 60% of high-risk HPV. (c) 2015 American Cancer Society.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
College of Medicine > Department of Medical Science > 1. Journal Articles
Graduate School > Department of Biomedical Sciences > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Choi, Jung Woo photo

Choi, Jung Woo
의과대학 (의학과)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE