| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Partanen, VM, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of cytology and human papillomavirus-based primary testing in cervical screening programs in the Nordic countries
- 2021
-
In: Journal of medical screening. - : SAGE Publications. - 1475-5793 .- 0969-1413. ; 28:4, s. 464-471
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To compare primary test positivity in cytology and human papillomavirus-based screening between different Nordic cervical cancer screening programs using harmonized register data. Methods This study utilized individual-level data available in national databases in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Cervical test data from each country were converted to standard format and aggregated by calculating the number of test episodes for every test result for each calendar year and one-year age group and test method. Test positivity was estimated as the proportion of positive test results of all primary test episodes with a valid test result for “any positive” and “clearly positive” results. Results The age-adjusted rate ratio for any positive test results in primary human papillomavirus-based screening compared to cytology was 1.66 (95% CI 1.64–1.68). The age-adjusted rate ratio for clearly positive test results was 1.02 (95% CI 1.00–1.05). A decreasing rate ratio by age was seen in both any positive and clearly positive test results. Test positivity increased over time in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden but slightly decreased in Finland. Conclusions The probability of any positive test result was higher in human papillomavirus testing than in primary cytology, even though the cross-sectional detection of a clearly positive test result was the same. Human papillomavirus testing can still lead to an improved longitudinal sensitivity through a larger number of follow-up tests and the opportunity to identify women with a persistent human papillomavirus infection. Further research on histologically verified precancerous lesions is needed in primary as well as repeat testing.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Basu, P, et al.
(author)
-
Erratum
- 2018
-
In: International journal of cancer. - : Wiley. - 1097-0215 .- 0020-7136. ; 143:1, s. E1-E1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
- Senore, C, et al.
(author)
-
Performance of colorectal cancer screening in the European Union Member States: data from the second European screening report
- 2019
-
In: Gut. - : BMJ. - 1468-3288 .- 0017-5749. ; 68:7, s. 1232-1244
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- To present comparative data about the performance of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes in the European Union Member States (EU MSs).DesignCross-sectional study. We analysed key performance indicators—participation rate, positivity rate (PR), detection rate (DR) and positive predictive value for adenomas and CRC—based on the aggregated quantitative data collected for the second EU screening report. We derived crude and pooled (through a random effects model) estimates to describe and compare trends across different MSs/regions and screening protocols.ResultsParticipation rate was higher in countries adopting faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (range: 22.8%–71.3%) than in those using guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (range 4.5%–66.6%), and it showed a positive correlation (ρ=0.842, p<0.001) with participation in breast cancer screening in the same areas. Screening performance showed a large variability. Compliance with referral for colonoscopy (total colonoscopy (TC)) assessment ranged between 64% and 92%; TC completion rate ranged between 92% and 99%. PR and DR of advanced adenomas and CRC were higher in FIT, as compared with gFOBT programmes, and independent of the protocol among men, older subjects and those performing their first screening.ConclusionsThe variability in the results of quality indicators across population-based screening programmes highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as well as the need to promote quality improvement efforts, as recommended in the EU guidelines. The implementation of monitoring systems, ensuring availability of data for the entire process, together with initiatives aimed to enhance reproducibility of histology and quality of endoscopy, represent a priority in screening programmes management.
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
