Cargando…

Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?

Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a Roche cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test application as a first line primary cervical screening tool in women 25 and older introduces a new era of complex cervical screening choices. Perhaps the most surprising findings in Roche's suppo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Austin, R. Marshall, Zhao, Chengquan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4058958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24987445
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.132997
_version_ 1782321194223009792
author Austin, R. Marshall
Zhao, Chengquan
author_facet Austin, R. Marshall
Zhao, Chengquan
author_sort Austin, R. Marshall
collection PubMed
description Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a Roche cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test application as a first line primary cervical screening tool in women 25 and older introduces a new era of complex cervical screening choices. Perhaps the most surprising findings in Roche's supporting ATHENA trial data were the unexpectedly low verification bias-adjusted CIN3+ sensitivities documented by the FDA for both the proposed cobas HPV testing algorithm (58.26%) and Pap testing algorithm (42.63%). These unexpectedly low sensitivity estimates suggest intuitively that there is still considerable room for improvement in cervical screening, and available data from large systems point to routine cytology and HPV co-testing as offering the greatest protection against development of cervical cancer. Observational studies of large populations screened over time remain essential to document actual protection from development of cervical cancer with any new cervical screening options, as natural history studies and available data from large systems indicate that most CIN2/3 cases detected in short term clinical trials would not progress to invasive cervical cancer. Interpretation of ATHENA trial data and its application to routine clinical practice is further limited by published studies which document that a significant proportion of CIN2/3 biopsy diagnoses in the ATHENA trial could not be confirmed as accurate when evaluated with p16 immunohistochemistry and that cytology laboratory performance in the trial was notably suboptimal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4058958
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40589582014-07-01 Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening? Austin, R. Marshall Zhao, Chengquan Cytojournal Review Article Recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a Roche cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test application as a first line primary cervical screening tool in women 25 and older introduces a new era of complex cervical screening choices. Perhaps the most surprising findings in Roche's supporting ATHENA trial data were the unexpectedly low verification bias-adjusted CIN3+ sensitivities documented by the FDA for both the proposed cobas HPV testing algorithm (58.26%) and Pap testing algorithm (42.63%). These unexpectedly low sensitivity estimates suggest intuitively that there is still considerable room for improvement in cervical screening, and available data from large systems point to routine cytology and HPV co-testing as offering the greatest protection against development of cervical cancer. Observational studies of large populations screened over time remain essential to document actual protection from development of cervical cancer with any new cervical screening options, as natural history studies and available data from large systems indicate that most CIN2/3 cases detected in short term clinical trials would not progress to invasive cervical cancer. Interpretation of ATHENA trial data and its application to routine clinical practice is further limited by published studies which document that a significant proportion of CIN2/3 biopsy diagnoses in the ATHENA trial could not be confirmed as accurate when evaluated with p16 immunohistochemistry and that cytology laboratory performance in the trial was notably suboptimal. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4058958/ /pubmed/24987445 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.132997 Text en Copyright: © 2014 Austin RM and Zhao C; licensee Cytopathology Foundation Inc http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Austin, R. Marshall
Zhao, Chengquan
Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
title Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
title_full Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
title_fullStr Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
title_full_unstemmed Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
title_short Is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
title_sort is 58% sensitivity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 and invasive cervical cancer optimal for cervical screening?
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4058958/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24987445
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1742-6413.132997
work_keys_str_mv AT austinrmarshall is58sensitivityfordetectionofcervicalintraepithelialneoplasia3andinvasivecervicalcanceroptimalforcervicalscreening
AT zhaochengquan is58sensitivityfordetectionofcervicalintraepithelialneoplasia3andinvasivecervicalcanceroptimalforcervicalscreening