Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

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

. 2024 ; 32 (3) : 166-172. [pub] -

Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, srovnávací studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24017572

Digitální knihovna NLK
Zdroj

E-zdroje Online Plný text

NLK Free Medical Journals od 2004
ProQuest Central od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) od 2006-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
Public Health Database (ProQuest) od 2009-03-01 do Před 6 měsíci
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources od 1993

Odkazy

PubMed 39352091
DOI 10.21101/cejph.a8014
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje

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.

Citace poskytuje 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

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace