Fax: 0032/(0)2 642 54 10.
How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?†
Version of Record online: 22 JUL 2009
Copyright © 2009 UICC
International Journal of Cancer
Volume 125, Issue 11, pages 2489–2496, 1 December 2009
How to Cite
Arbyn, M., Ronco, G., Cuzick, J., Wentzensen, N. and Castle, P. E. (2009), How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?. Int. J. Cancer, 125: 2489–2496. doi: 10.1002/ijc.24774
Conflict of interest: JC: advisory board (Abott, GenProbe, Qiagen, Roche), research support (Abott, Gen Probe, Qiagen, Roche); GR: advisory board (GenProbe), currently ceased.
- Issue online: 24 SEP 2009
- Version of Record online: 22 JUL 2009
- Accepted manuscript online: 22 JUL 2009 12:00AM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 10 JUL 2009
- Manuscript Received: 6 MAY 2009
- The Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, Brussels, Belgium
- The Gynaecological Cancer Cochrane Review Collaboration (Bath, United Kingdom)
- The European Commission through the ECCG (European Cooperation on development and implementation of Cancer screening and prevention Guidelines, via IARC, Lyon, France)
- Directorate of SANCO (Luxembourg, Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg)
- EUROCOURSE Network (Europe against Cancer: Optimisation of the Use of Registries for Scientific Excellence in research, via the Comprehensive Cancer Centre South (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) funded by the 7th Framework programme of DG Research (Brussels, Belgium)
- IWT (Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (through the Unit of Health Economics and Modelling Infectious Diseases, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp. Grant Number: 060081
- 1The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 2114–9., , , , , , , , , , .
- 2European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology. Cytopathology 2007; 18: 213–9., , , , , .
- 32006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007; 11: 201–22., , , , , .
- 4Screening in Chronic Disease. 1992; 2: 1–254. Oxford University Press, Inc.1–254..
- 5Peri-natal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a meta-analysis. BMJ 2008; 337:a1284: 1–11., , , , , , , .
- 6Chapter 3: Methods for Screening and Diagnosis. In: ArbynM,AnttilaA,JordanJ,RoncoG,SchenckU,SegnanN,WienerH,DanielJ,von KarsaL,European Commission, eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008, 69–152., , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 7Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer. Br J Cancer 1985; 52: 669–73., , , , .
- 8Epidemiological evidence for age-dependent regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1991; 64: 559–65., .
- 9Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 425–34., , , , , , .
- 10Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results. BMJ 1992; 305: 449–51., , .
- 11Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. BMJ 1986; 293: 659–64., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 12Screening for cancer of the cervix. J Epidemiol Community Health 1989; 43: 103–6..
- 13Accuracy of the Papanicolaou Test in Screening for and Follow-up of Cervical Cytologic Abnormalities: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 810–9., , , , , , .
- 14Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 167–77., , , , , .
- 15International agreement to join forces in synthesizing evidence on new methods for cervical cancer prevention. Cancer Lett 2009; 278: 1–2., .
- 16Proteomic identification of differentially-expressed proteins in squamous cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 248–56., , , , , , .
- 17Utility of methylation markers in cervical cancer early detection: Appraisal of the state-of-the-science. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112: 293–9., , , .
- 18Use of hyperspectral imaging to distinguish normal, precancerous, and cancerous cells. Cancer 2008; 114: 13–21., , , , , , , , .
- 19The clinical effectiveness of optical spectroscopy for the in vivo diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: where are we? Gynecol Oncol 2007; 107: S138–S146., , , , , , , , .
- 20A report on the current status of European research on the use of human papillomavirus testing for primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006; 118: 791–6., , , , , .
- 21Efficacy and other milestones for human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. Vaccine 2004; 23: 569–78., .
- 22Principles and practice of screening for disease. 1968;Public Health Papers 34. Geneva, World Health Organisation., .
- 23Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993; 12: 186–92..
- 24Natural History of Dysplasia of the Uterine Cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 252–8., , , .
- 25Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations. JAMA 2001; 285: 1500–5., .
- 26The carcinogenicity of human papillomavirus types reflects viral evolution. Virology 2005; 337: 76–84., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 27Effects of age and human papilloma viral load on colposcopy triage: data from the randomised atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade intraepithelial lesion triage study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 102–7., , .
- 28Histopathologic extent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 lesions in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion trage study: implications for subject safety and lead-time bias. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003; 12: 372–9., , , , .
- 29CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2007; 26: 441–6., , , , , , , , , , , .
- 30Evidence for Frequent Regression of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia-Grade 2. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 18–25., , , .
- 31Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003; 326: 41–4., , , , , , , , , .
- 32The development of QUADAS : a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003; 3: 1–13., , , , .
- 33Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics 1983; 39: 207–15., .
- 34Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 581–6..
- 35Efficient Study Designs to Assess the Accuracy of Screening Tests. Am J Epidemiol 1994; 140: 759–69., , , , , .
- 36The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford: Oxford Universitty Press, 2003. 318p.,
- 37Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000; 9: 945–51., , .
- 38Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 672–8., , , .
- 39Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 1211–7., , , .
- 40Avoiding verification bias in screening test evaluation in resource poor settings; a case study from Zimbabwe. Clin Trials 2008; 5: 496–503., , , .
- 41Distribution of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2, 3 and cancer on the uterine cervix. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2006; 10: 45–50., , , , , , .
- 42Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid as a cervical cancer test validated using Latent Class Analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 1–10., , , .
- 43Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 2008; 123: 153–60., , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 44Number of cervical biopsies and sensitivity of colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 264–72., , , , , , , , .
- 45Inflation of sensitivity of cervical cancer screening tests secondary to correlated error in colposcopy. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2006; 10: 5–9., , , , .
- 46Colposcopy at a crossroads. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 349–53., .
- 47Interobserver agreement in the evaluation of digitized cervical images. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 833–40., , , , .
- 48Interobserver agreement in the assessment of components of colposcopic grading. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 1279–84., , .
- 49Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 430–4., , , , , , .
- 50A study of HPV genotype distribution, cytology, and histopathology among 1700 women referred to colposcopy in Oklahoma: implications for disease classification. Int J Cancer 2008; 1–24., , , , , , , , , , , .
- 51Chapter 2: Epidemiological Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. In: ArbynM,AnttilaA,JordanJ,RoncoG,SchenckU,SegnanN,WienerH,DanielJ,von KarsaL,European Commission, eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008; 11–52., , , , , , , , , .
- 52Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer 2003; 89: 88–93., , .
- 53Screening-Preventable Cervical Cancer Risks: Evidence From a Nationwide Audit in Sweden. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 622–9., , , , , , , .
- 54The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 1987–91., , .
- 55Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896–900., , , , , .
- 56A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Biostatistics 2007; 8: 239–51., , , , .
- 57Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 1054–61., , , , , , , .
- 58Chapter 16: Cervical Cytology Biobanks as a Resource for Molecular Epidemiology. Methods in Biobanking. Tutowa (New Jersey, USA): The Humana Press Inc, 2009, in-press., , , , , .
- 59Pivotal evaluation of the accuracy of a biomarker used for classification or prediction: standards for study design. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1432–8., , , , .
- 60ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study Group. A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1393–400.
- 61Triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cervical cytology results. A meta-analysis of the HPV test positivity rate. J Cell Mol Med 2009; 13: 648–59., , , , , .
- 62Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 2006; 24 Suppl 3: S3-78–89., , , , , .
- 63Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1589–97., , , , , , , , , , , .
- 64Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 796–802., , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 65Detection rate of high grade CIN 3 years after normal cytology and after normal HPV testing: preliminary follow up results from phase 1 of the NTCC randomised study. 2007. Beijing, Proceedings 24th International Papillomavirus Conference, 3–9 November, 2007., , , , , .
- 66HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1385–94., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 67Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003; 362: 1871–6., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 68Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 88–98., , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 69Human Papillomavirus mRNA and p16 Detection as Biomarkers for the Improved Diagnosis of Cervical Neoplasia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 2536–45., .
- 70Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA testing as a predictive marker for cervical carcinoma. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2008; 8: 405–15., .
- 71Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 280–93., , , , , .
- 72p16INK4a immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35: 210–20., , , , , , , .
- 73Triage of women with ASCUS and LSIL cytology: use of qualitative assessment of p16INK4a positive cells to identify patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer 2007; 111: 58–66., , , , .
- 74Use of p16-INK4A overexpression to increase the specificity of human papillomavirus testing: a nested substudy of the NTCC randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 937–45., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 75Cytological detection of cervical abnormalities using a liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1327–34., , , , , .
- 76Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007; 335: 28., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
- 77Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older. Int J Cancer 2009; 124: 516–20., , , , , , , , , , .
- 78Clinical utility of HPV DNA detection: triage of minor cervical lesions, follow-up of women treated for high-grade CIN. An update of pooled evidence. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 99 ( Suppl 3): 7–11., , , , .
- 79Cervical cancer screening following prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination. Vaccine 2008; 26 Suppl 1: A16–A23., .
- 80New paradigms in cervical cancer prevention: opportunities and risks. BMC Womens Health 2008; 8: 23., .