Incomplete follow-up of positive HPV tests: overview of randomised controlled trials on primary cervical screening.

M Rebolj, E Lynge
Author Information
  1. M Rebolj: Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 København K, Denmark. m.rebolj@pubhealth.ku.dk

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that adjustment for incomplete compliance with follow-up in women with positive human papillomavirus (HPV) tests would be appropriate for estimating the true sensitivity of cervical screening with HPV testing. We assessed the compliance and its impact on > or =CIN3 detection in all eight randomised controlled trials (RCT) with published baseline-round data.
METHODS: We extracted data on recommended follow-up procedures, follow-up compliance, and > or =CIN3 detection for both arms of each RCT, and assessed their correlation.
RESULTS: Compliance with a direct referral for colposcopy was around 90% in all RCTs, whereas compliance with repeated testing among HPV-positive/cytology-negative women was around 60% in three RCTs and 73% in one RCT. Detection of > or =CIN3 was significantly increased in two out of six RCTs with reported data. The correlation between compliance with follow-up in HPV-positive women and relative > or =CIN3 detection was 0.48 (P=0.33).
CONCLUSION: There is at present scant evidence to support the view that the measured sensitivity of HPV screening is a simple reflection of compliance with follow-up. Adjustment of measured cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detection on the basis of compliance data may not always be justifiable, and if adjustment is made, it should be used very judiciously.

References

  1. N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 18;357(16):1579-88 [PMID: 17942871]
  2. Lancet. 2007 Nov 24;370(9601):1764-72 [PMID: 17919718]
  3. N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1385-94 [PMID: 19339719]
  4. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;193(3 Pt 1):650-7 [PMID: 16150255]
  5. Lancet Oncol. 2006 Jul;7(7):547-55 [PMID: 16814206]
  6. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Sep;10(9):841-2; author reply 842-3 [PMID: 19717086]
  7. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Jun 7;98(11):765-74 [PMID: 16757701]
  8. Eur J Cancer. 2008 Mar;44(4):565-71 [PMID: 18248809]
  9. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Mar;11(3):249-57 [PMID: 20089449]
  10. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jan 21;101(2):88-99 [PMID: 19141778]
  11. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jul;10(7):672-82 [PMID: 19540162]
  12. Health Technol Assess. 2009 Nov;13(51):1-150, iii-iv [PMID: 19891902]
  13. Vaccine. 2008 Aug 19;26 Suppl 10:K29-41 [PMID: 18847555]
  14. Int J Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;123(12):2902-6 [PMID: 18792100]
  15. N Engl J Med. 2007 Oct 18;357(16):1589-97 [PMID: 17942872]
  16. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Apr 2;100(7):492-501 [PMID: 18364502]
  17. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Dec 2;101(23):1612-23 [PMID: 19903804]

MeSH Term

Adult
Colposcopy
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Mass Screening
Middle Aged
Papillomaviridae
Patient Compliance
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Sensitivity and Specificity
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0compliancefollow-upHPV>=CIN3detectiondatawomencervicalscreeningRCTRCTsadjustmentpositivesensitivitytestingassessedrandomisedcontrolledtrialscorrelationaroundmeasuredBACKGROUND:suggestedincompletehumanpapillomavirustestsappropriateestimatingtrueimpacteightpublishedbaseline-roundMETHODS:extractedrecommendedproceduresarmsRESULTS:Compliancedirectreferralcolposcopy90%whereasrepeatedamongHPV-positive/cytology-negative60%three73%oneDetectionsignificantlyincreasedtwosixreportedHPV-positiverelative048P=033CONCLUSION:presentscantevidencesupportviewsimplereflectionAdjustmentintraepithelialneoplasiabasismayalwaysjustifiablemadeusedjudiciouslyIncompletetests:overviewprimary

Similar Articles

Cited By