Outcomes of prior cervical cytology and HR-HPV testing in women subsequently diagnosed with CIN1, CIN2/3, and invasive c
- PDF / 543,998 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 93 Downloads / 184 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Outcomes of prior cervical cytology and HRHPV testing in women subsequently diagnosed with CIN1, CIN2/3, and invasive cervical cancer: a 4-year routine clinical experience after implementation of systematic training and quality control programs Dongman Zhao1†, Liran Zhang1†, Fengxiang Xie1, Dezhi Peng2, Jie Wei2, Lingbo Jiang2, Shoudu Zhang2 and Debo Qi2*
Abstract Background: In 2013, Jinan KingMed Diagnostics (JKD) first established a systematic cervical cytology training and quality control (QC) program in Shandong Province, China. We compared the efficacy of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) detection, cytology, and their combination in routine clinical practice after the implementation of the training and QC program to identify the optimal first-line screening method in this region. Methods: The data of patients histologically diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, CIN2/3, and invasive cervical cancer (ICC) between January 2014 and December 2017 were retrieved from the JKD database. Cytology and/or HR-HPV testing results within 3 months preceding the CIN1 diagnoses and 6 months preceding the CIN2/3 and ICC diagnoses were analyzed. Results: Prior screening data were available for 1829 CIN1 patients, 2309 CIN2/3 patients, and 680 ICC patients. Cytology alone and HR-HPV testing alone had similar rates of positive results for CIN2/3 (97.2% [854/879] vs. 95.4% [864/906], P = 0.105) and ICC detection (89.1% [205/230] vs. 92.7% [204/220], P = 0.185). Compared with either method alone, co-testing slightly increased the screening sensitivity for CIN2/3 (99.8% [523/524], all P < 0.001) and ICC (99.6% [229/230], all P < 0.001) detection. In the CIN1 group, cervical cytology alone (92.9% [520/560]) was more sensitive than HR-HPV testing alone (79.9% [570/713], P < 0.001), and co-testing (95.3% [530/556]) did not significantly improve the screening sensitivity (P = 0.105). (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] † Dongman Zhao and Liran Zhang contributed equally to this work. 2 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Jinan KingMed Diagnostics, Jinan 250101, Shandong Province, China Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this li
Data Loading...
