文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

25 岁及以上女性宫颈癌筛查中致癌型人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)检测及 HPV16 或 HPV18 基因分型的性能:ATHENA 研究的一项亚组分析。

Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study.

机构信息

American Society for Clinical Pathology Institute, Washington, DC 20005, USA.

出版信息

Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(9):880-90. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70188-7. Epub 2011 Aug 22.


DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70188-7
PMID:21865084
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ATHENA study was designed to assess the performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping compared with liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening in a large US population aged 21 years and older. We did a subanalysis of this population to compare the screening performance of the cobas HPV test versus liquid-based cytology in women aged 25 years and older, and assess management strategies for HPV-positive women. METHODS: Women aged 25 years or older who were attending routine cervical screening were enrolled from 61 clinical centres in 23 US states. Cervical specimens were obtained for liquid-based cytology and HPV DNA testing with two first-generation assays (Amplicor HPV test and Linear Array HPV genotyping test) and the second-generation cobas HPV test (with individual HPV16 and HPV18 detection). Colposcopy and diagnostic biopsies were done on women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse cytology, those who tested positive with either first-generation HPV test, and a random sample of women who tested negative for HPV and cytology. All women not selected for colposcopy received their results and exited the study. Participants and colposcopists were masked to cytology and HPV test results until the colposcopy visit was completed. The primary endpoint for this substudy was histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) or worse. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00709891; the study is in the follow-up phase, which is due to be completed in December, 2012. FINDINGS: From May 27, 2008, to Aug 27, 2009, 47,208 women were enrolled, of whom 41,955 met our eligibility criteria. Valid cobas HPV and liquid-based cytology test results were available for 40,901 women (97%), who were included in this analysis. Of these, 4275 women (10%) tested cobas HPV positive and 2617 (6%) had abnormal cytology. 431 women were diagnosed with CIN2 or worse and 274 with CIN3 or worse. In women who had colposcopy, the cobas HPV test was more sensitive than liquid-based cytology for detection of CIN3 or worse (252/274 [92·0%, 95% CI 88·1-94·6] vs 146/274 [53·3%, 95% CI 47·4-59·1]; difference 38·7%, 95% CI 31·9-45·5; p<0·0001). Addition of liquid-based cytology to HPV testing increased sensitivity for CIN3 or worse to 96·7% (265/274, 95% CI 93·9-98·3), but increased the number of screen positives by 35·2% (5783/40,901 vs 4275/40,901) compared with HPV testing alone. As a triage test to identify CIN3 or worse in HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both alone was equivalent to detection of ASC-US or worse alone in terms of sensitivity (150/252 [59·5%] vs 133/252 [52·8%]; p=0·11) and positive predictive value (PPV) (150/966 [15·5%] vs 133/940 [14·1%]; p=0·20). Among HPV-positive women, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had better sensitivity (182/252 [72·2%]; p<0·0001) and similar PPV (182/1314 [13·9%]; p=0·70) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. Furthermore, detection of HPV16, HPV18, or both or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology had higher sensitivity (165/252 [65·5%]; p=0·0011) and PPV (165/1013 [16·3%]; p=0·031) for detection of CIN3 or worse than ASC-US or worse cytology alone. INTERPRETATION: HPV testing with separate HPV16 and HPV18 detection could provide an alternative, more sensitive, and efficient strategy for cervical cancer screening than do methods based solely on cytology. FUNDING: Roche Molecular Systems.

摘要

背景:ATHENA 研究旨在评估致癌型人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)检测与液基细胞学在 21 岁及以上美国人群中的宫颈癌筛查效能,我们对该人群进行了亚组分析,以比较 25 岁及以上女性中 cobas HPV 检测与液基细胞学的筛查效能,并评估 HPV 阳性女性的管理策略。

方法:从美国 23 个州的 61 个临床中心招募年龄 25 岁或以上、接受常规宫颈筛查的女性。获取宫颈标本进行液基细胞学和两种第一代 HPV DNA 检测(Amplicor HPV 检测和 Linear Array HPV 基因分型检测)以及第二代 cobas HPV 检测(单个 HPV16 和 HPV18 检测)。对意义不明的不典型鳞状细胞(ASC-US)或更差细胞学的女性、两种第一代 HPV 检测阳性的女性,以及 HPV 和细胞学检测均为阴性的随机女性样本进行阴道镜检查和诊断性活检。所有未选择阴道镜检查的女性均获得结果并退出研究。研究参与者和阴道镜医生在阴道镜检查完成之前对细胞学和 HPV 检测结果均不知情。该亚组研究的主要终点为组织学证实的宫颈上皮内瘤变 3 级(CIN3)或更高级别病变。本研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT00709891;研究目前处于随访阶段,预计将于 2012 年 12 月完成。

结果:2008 年 5 月 27 日至 2009 年 8 月 27 日,共招募了 47208 名女性,其中 41955 名符合我们的入选标准。有 40901 名女性获得了有效的 cobas HPV 和液基细胞学检测结果,占 97%,被纳入了本分析。其中 4275 名女性 cobas HPV 阳性,2617 名(6%)细胞学异常。431 名女性诊断为 CIN2 或更高级别病变,274 名诊断为 CIN3 或更高级别病变。在接受阴道镜检查的女性中,cobas HPV 检测对 CIN3 或更高级别病变的检测灵敏度高于液基细胞学(252/274 [92.0%],95%CI 88.1-94.6 比 146/274 [53.3%],95%CI 47.4-59.1;差异 38.7%,95%CI 31.9-45.5;p<0.0001)。在 HPV 检测的基础上加用液基细胞学检查,可使 CIN3 或更高级别病变的检出灵敏度提高至 96.7%(265/274,95%CI 93.9-98.3),但使 HPV 检测阳性数增加 35.2%(5783/40901 比 4275/40901)。与单独 HPV 检测相比,检测 HPV16、HPV18 或两者均阳性与单独检测 ASC-US 或更差在灵敏度(150/252 [59.5%] 比 133/252 [52.8%];p=0.11)和阳性预测值(PPV)(150/966 [15.5%] 比 133/940 [14.1%];p=0.20)方面无差异。在 HPV 阳性女性中,检测 HPV16、HPV18 或两者阳性或低级别鳞状上皮内病变或更差细胞学检查对 CIN3 或更高级别病变的检测灵敏度(182/252 [72.2%];p<0.0001)和阳性预测值(182/1314 [13.9%];p=0.70)均优于单独检测 ASC-US 或更差细胞学。此外,检测 HPV16、HPV18 或两者阳性或高级别鳞状上皮内病变或更差细胞学检查对 CIN3 或更高级别病变的检测灵敏度(165/252 [65.5%];p=0.0011)和阳性预测值(165/1013 [16.3%];p=0.031)均优于单独检测 ASC-US 或更差细胞学。

结论:与单纯基于细胞学的方法相比,HPV 检测联合单独检测 HPV16 和 HPV18 可能是一种更为敏感和有效的宫颈癌筛查策略。

资金来源:罗氏分子系统公司。

相似文献

[1]
Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study.

Lancet Oncol. 2011-8-22

[2]
Clinical relevance of partial HPV16/18 genotyping in stratifying HPV-positive women attending routine cervical cancer screening: a population-based cohort study.

BJOG. 2021-7

[3]
The effectiveness of HPV16 and HPV18 genotyping and cytology with different thresholds for the triage of human papillomavirus-based screening on self-collected samples.

PLoS One. 2020-6-11

[4]
Primary screening for cervical cancer based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection and HPV 16 and HPV 18 genotyping, in comparison to cytology.

PLoS One. 2015-3-20

[5]
Methylation estimates the risk of precancer in HPV-infected women with discrepant results between cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping.

Clin Epigenetics. 2019-10-12

[6]
[Evaluation of CIN2+ /CIN3+ risk of different HPV subtypes infection combined with abnormal cytology status].

Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2018-3-23

[7]
Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial.

Lancet Oncol. 2011-12-14

[8]
Triaging HPV-positive women with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: Results from a sub-study nested into the ATHENA trial.

Gynecol Oncol. 2016-10-27

[9]
The Role of Human Papillomavirus Genotyping in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Large-Scale Evaluation of the cobas HPV Test.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015-9

[10]
Comparison of different strategies for the triage to colposcopy of women tested high-risk HPV positive on self-collected cervicovaginal samples.

Gynecol Oncol. 2021-9

引用本文的文献

[1]
High-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) prevalence and abnormal cervical cytology in rural high-altitude communities: a population-based cross-sectional study in the Southern Tibetan Plateau, China (2023-2024).

Virol J. 2025-8-13

[2]
Development of Z- granzyme B immunoaffitoxin: dual mechanisms targeting hpv16-positive cervical cancer through epithelial-mesenchymal transition inhibition and cell death.

Front Immunol. 2025-7-21

[3]
Experiences and Preferences Reported with an At-Home Self-Collection Device Compared with In-Clinic Speculum-Based Cervical Cancer Screening in the United States.

Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2025-5-19

[4]
Human papillomavirus infection and screening strategies.

World J Clin Oncol. 2025-5-24

[5]
Clinical Validation of a Vaginal Cervical Cancer Screening Self-Collection Method for At-Home Use: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Netw Open. 2025-5-1

[6]
A pragmatic randomized trial to compare strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large healthcare system.

Implement Sci. 2025-5-12

[7]
Diagnostic accuracy of the Daye diagnostic tampon compared to clinician-collected and self-collected vaginal swabs for detecting HPV: a comparative study.

J Clin Microbiol. 2025-5-14

[8]
Comparison of Diagnostic Methods in Patients with Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion in Women Infected with Multiple High-Risk Human Papillomaviruses.

Iran J Pathol. 2025

[9]
Risk-based triage strategy by extended HPV genotyping for women with ASC-US cytology.

Ann Med. 2025-12

[10]
Impact of knowledge of human papillomavirus positivity on cervical cytology performance in Latin America.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2025-4-1

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索