-
Something wrong with this record ?
Comparison of cervical cancer screening models based on Pap and HPV tests in Tbilisi, Georgia
E. Kiguradze, T. Skhirtladze, N. Chkhartishvili, T. Gogoladze, N. Chikhladze, T. Alibegashvili
Language English Country Czech Republic
Document type Journal Article, Comparative Study
Digital library NLK
Source
NLK
Free Medical Journals
from 2004
ProQuest Central
from 2009-03-01 to 6 months ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2006-03-01 to 6 months ago
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2009-03-01 to 6 months ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2009-03-01 to 6 months ago
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2009-03-01 to 6 months ago
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 1993
PubMed
39352091
DOI
10.21101/cejph.a8014
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Early Detection of Cancer * methods MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Genotype MeSH
- Papillomavirus Infections * diagnosis virology MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Human papillomavirus 16 genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Human papillomavirus 18 genetics isolation & purification MeSH
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms * virology diagnosis MeSH
- Papanicolaou Test * MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
- Sensitivity and Specificity MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Geographicals
- Georgia (Republic) MeSH
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of human papillomavirus HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage as a primary screening method for cervical cancer compared to conventional Pap test in women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening in Tbilisi. METHODS: Cross-sectional, prospective study was conducted, where 1,000 enrolled women aged 30-60 years during one visit underwent conventional Pap smear and Hr-HPV testing (Roche Cobas system). Women with any positive screening results were referred for further evaluation and remaining cells from the Cell Collection Medium vial were used for LBC. The study calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for each screening method and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the accuracy of each diagnostic method in identifying people with CIN2+ diseases. RESULTS: The HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage demonstrated higher sensitivity (76.9%), specificity (71.6%), and PPV (34.5%) compared to conventional Pap tests (p < 0.05). NPV was also high with the HPV test (94.1%). The HPV test alone had the highest sensitivity (92.3%) and NPV (96.7%), but lower specificity (41.4%) and PPV (22.6%) than the HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage (p < 0.05). Comparing the areas under the curve (AUCs), only the HPV with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage showed a statistically significant difference when compared to conventional Pap (0.71 vs. 0.55, p = 0.03) and high figures of AUC 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85) suggesting that HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage is a more reliable screening method for detecting CIN2+ disease and preventing cervical cancer, than other screening modality. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage is a more effective primary screening method compared to conventional Pap tests. This information should be the basis for transition from cytological screening to HPV testing in Georgia.
Faculty of Medicine Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Tbilisi Georgia
Infectious Diseases AIDS and Clinical Immunology Research Centre Tbilisi Georgia
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24017572
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250507135837.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 241004s2024 xr d f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.21101/cejph.a8014 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39352091
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Kiguradze, Eter $u Faculty of Medicine, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia $u National Screening Centre, Tbilisi, Georgia
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of cervical cancer screening models based on Pap and HPV tests in Tbilisi, Georgia / $c E. Kiguradze, T. Skhirtladze, N. Chkhartishvili, T. Gogoladze, N. Chikhladze, T. Alibegashvili
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of human papillomavirus HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage as a primary screening method for cervical cancer compared to conventional Pap test in women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening in Tbilisi. METHODS: Cross-sectional, prospective study was conducted, where 1,000 enrolled women aged 30-60 years during one visit underwent conventional Pap smear and Hr-HPV testing (Roche Cobas system). Women with any positive screening results were referred for further evaluation and remaining cells from the Cell Collection Medium vial were used for LBC. The study calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for each screening method and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the accuracy of each diagnostic method in identifying people with CIN2+ diseases. RESULTS: The HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage demonstrated higher sensitivity (76.9%), specificity (71.6%), and PPV (34.5%) compared to conventional Pap tests (p < 0.05). NPV was also high with the HPV test (94.1%). The HPV test alone had the highest sensitivity (92.3%) and NPV (96.7%), but lower specificity (41.4%) and PPV (22.6%) than the HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage (p < 0.05). Comparing the areas under the curve (AUCs), only the HPV with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage showed a statistically significant difference when compared to conventional Pap (0.71 vs. 0.55, p = 0.03) and high figures of AUC 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85) suggesting that HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage is a more reliable screening method for detecting CIN2+ disease and preventing cervical cancer, than other screening modality. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage is a more effective primary screening method compared to conventional Pap tests. This information should be the basis for transition from cytological screening to HPV testing in Georgia.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 12
- $a nádory děložního čípku $x virologie $x diagnóza $7 D002583
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a průřezové studie $7 D003430
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 12
- $a časná detekce nádoru $x metody $7 D055088
- 650 12
- $a infekce papilomavirem $x diagnóza $x virologie $7 D030361
- 650 12
- $a Papanicolaouův test $7 D065006
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 650 _2
- $a lidský papilomavirus 16 $x genetika $x izolace a purifikace $7 D052162
- 650 _2
- $a lidský papilomavirus 18 $x genetika $x izolace a purifikace $7 D052161
- 650 _2
- $a genotyp $7 D005838
- 651 _2
- $a Gruzie $x epidemiologie $7 D005846
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 700 1_
- $a Skhirtladze, Tamar $u National Screening Centre, Tbilisi, Georgia
- 700 1_
- $a Chkhartishvili, Nikoloz $u Infectious Diseases, AIDS and Clinical Immunology Research Centre, Tbilisi, Georgia
- 700 1_
- $a Gogoladze, Tamuna $u National Screening Centre, Tbilisi, Georgia
- 700 1_
- $a Chikhladze, Nino $u Faculty of Medicine, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
- 700 1_
- $a Alibegashvili, Tamar $u National Screening Centre, Tbilisi, Georgia
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001083 $t Central European journal of public health $x 1210-7778 $g Roč. 32, č. 3 (2024), s. 166-172
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39352091 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b B 1829 $c 562 $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20241004 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250507135835 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2316492 $s 1229522
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 32 $c 3 $d 166-172 $e - $i 1210-7778 $m Central European journal of public health $n Cent Eur J Public Health $x MED00001083
- LZP __
- $b NLK124 $a Pubmed-20241004
