About: Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study
Creator	Su, Yingying Chen, Lihua Lin, Wenyu Dong, Binhua Kang, Yafang Mao, Xiaodan Pan, Diling Ruan, Guanyu Sun, Pengming Xue, Huifeng
Source	PMC
abstract	BACKGROUND: New screening techniques may affect the optimal approaches for the prevention of cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of alternative screening strategies to provide evidence for cervical cancer screening guidelines in China. METHODS: In total, 32,306 women were enrolled. The current screening with Cervista(®) high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping and cytology cotesting (Cervista(®) cotesting) was compared with PCR-reverse dot blot HR-HPV genotyping and cytology cotesting (PCR-RDB cotesting). All eligible participants were divided into Arm 1, in which both HR-HPV assays were performed, and Arms 2 and 3, in which the PCR-RDB HPV or Cervista(®) HR-HPV assay, respectively, was performed. Outcome indicators included the cases, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), colposcopy referral rate and cost of identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+). RESULTS: Among the eligible participants, 18.4% were PCR-RDB HR-HPV-positive, while 16.9% were Cervista(®) HR-HPV-positive, which reflects good agreement (k = 0.73). PCR-RDB cotesting identified more CIN3+ cases than Cervista(®) cotesting in the first round of screening in Arm 1 (37 vs 32) and Arms 2/3 (252 vs 165). The sensitivity and NPV of PCR-RDB cotesting for identifying CIN3+ in Arm 1 (sensitivity: 94.9% vs 86.5%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.7%) and Arms 2/3 (sensitivity: 95.1% vs 80.9%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.6%) were higher than those of Cervista(®) cotesting, but the cost was similar. CONCLUSIONS: The PCR-RDB HR-HPV genotyping and Cervista(®) HR-HPV assay results were consistent. PCR-RDB cotesting possesses optimal cost-effectiveness for cervical cancer screening in China, which has the highest number of cases globally but low screening coverage.
has issue date	2020-08-28(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1186/s12935-020-01512-4
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	6d2b8dac656e4b3a69e8bf6a4e6d801e8560249f
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-020-01512-4
resource representing a document's title	Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7453699
schema:publication	Cancer Cell Int
resource representing a document's body	covid:6d2b8dac656e4b3a69e8bf6a4e6d801e8560249f#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'optimal' named entity 'China' named entity 'cervical cancer' named entity 'informed consent' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'infection' named entity 'hematoxylin and eosin' named entity 'middle-income' named entity 'genotyping' named entity 'PPV' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'cervical cancer screening' named entity 'histologically' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'cervical cancer screening' named entity 'cost-effectiveness' named entity 'genotyping' named entity 'LSIL' named entity 'histopathological' named entity 'conization' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'colposcopy' named entity 'PCR' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'genotyping' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'RDB' named entity 'PLR' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'Hologic' named entity 'biopsy' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'viral load' named entity 'LSIL' named entity 'cervical cancer' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'Hologic Inc.' named entity 'negative likelihood ratio' named entity 'pregnancy' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'Qiagen' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'follow-up' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'colposcopy' named entity 'PCR' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'ASCUS' named entity 'Arm 3' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'China' named entity 'loss to follow-up' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'hysterectomy' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'cytology' named entity 'HPV' named entity 'cervical cancer' named entity 'genotyping' named entity 'genotypes' named entity 'follow-up' named entity 'TCT' named entity 'Arm 3' named entity 'vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia' named entity 'RDB' named entity 'PCR' named entity 'TCT' named entity 'PPV' named entity 'vaccination' named entity 'HPV'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software