• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
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
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
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 @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

组织化宫颈癌筛查中出现假阳性结果后的筛查参与情况:一项全国范围内基于登记的队列研究。

Screening participation after a false positive result in organized cervical cancer screening: a nationwide register-based cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Skovlyvej 15, 8930, Randers NØ, Denmark.

Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensen Boulevard 82, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 22;10(1):15427. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72279-x.

DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-72279-x
PMID:32963299
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7508879/
Abstract

Our aim was to investigate whether receiving a false positive (FP) cervical cytology result affected subsequent cervical cancer screening participation. This Danish nationwide register-based cohort study included 502,380 women aged 22.5-45 attending cervical cancer screening in 2012-2014 with a normal (n = 501,003) or FP (n = 1,377) cytology screening result. A FP result was defined as a cervical cytology showing high grade cytological abnormalities followed by a normal or 'Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 1' biopsy result. Women were categorized as subsequent participants if they had a cervical cytology within 24-42 months after their last screening or surveillance test. We compared subsequent participation among women with a normal versus a FP result, using odds ratios including 95% confidence intervals. Participation was slightly higher among women with FP results than among women with normal results (71.5% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.058). After adjustment for age and screening history, women with FP results participated significantly more than women with normal results (OR: 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.35). Women receiving a FP result did not participate less in subsequent cervical cancer screening than women receiving a normal result. In fact, the use of opportunistic screening seemed to be increased among women receiving a FP result.

摘要

我们的目的是调查收到假阳性(FP)宫颈细胞学结果是否会影响随后的宫颈癌筛查参与率。这项丹麦全国基于登记的队列研究纳入了 502380 名年龄在 22.5-45 岁之间于 2012-2014 年接受宫颈癌筛查的女性,她们的宫颈细胞学筛查结果正常(n=501003)或为 FP(n=1377)。FP 结果定义为宫颈细胞学显示高级别细胞学异常,随后为正常或“宫颈上皮内瘤变 1 级”活检结果。如果女性在最后一次筛查或监测测试后 24-42 个月内进行了宫颈细胞学检查,则将其归类为后续参与者。我们使用包括 95%置信区间的比值比比较了正常结果与 FP 结果女性的后续参与率。FP 结果女性的后续参与率略高于正常结果女性(71.5%对 69.2%,p=0.058)。在调整年龄和筛查史后,FP 结果女性的参与率显著高于正常结果女性(OR:1.19,95%CI 1.06-1.35)。与正常结果女性相比,收到 FP 结果的女性在随后的宫颈癌筛查中参与率并没有降低。事实上,FP 结果女性的机会性筛查似乎有所增加。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c4ad/7508879/716253683d51/41598_2020_72279_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c4ad/7508879/8b1cd32b5c20/41598_2020_72279_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c4ad/7508879/716253683d51/41598_2020_72279_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c4ad/7508879/8b1cd32b5c20/41598_2020_72279_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c4ad/7508879/716253683d51/41598_2020_72279_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Screening participation after a false positive result in organized cervical cancer screening: a nationwide register-based cohort study.组织化宫颈癌筛查中出现假阳性结果后的筛查参与情况:一项全国范围内基于登记的队列研究。
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 22;10(1):15427. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72279-x.
2
Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population.普通人群宫颈癌筛查中细胞学检查与HPV检测的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 10;8(8):CD008587. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2.
3
Benefit and burden in the Dutch cytology-based vs high-risk human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening program.荷兰基于细胞学与基于高危型人乳头瘤病毒的宫颈癌筛查项目中的获益与负担
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;224(2):200.e1-200.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.026. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
4
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.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。
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(9):880-90. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70188-7. Epub 2011 Aug 22.
5
The IMproving Primary Screening And Colposcopy Triage trial: human papillomavirus, cervical cytology, and histopathologic results from the baseline and 1-year follow-up phase.IMproving Primary Screening And Colposcopy Triage 试验:人乳头瘤病毒、宫颈细胞学和组织病理学结果,来自基线和 1 年随访阶段。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Sep;225(3):278.e1-278.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.047. Epub 2021 Apr 20.
6
Benefits and potential harms of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening: A real-world comparison of HPV testing versus cytology.基于人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)的宫颈癌筛查的益处与潜在危害:HPV检测与细胞学检查的真实世界比较
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Mar;100(3):394-402. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14121. Epub 2021 Mar 14.
7
Human papillomavirus test with cytology triage in organized screening for cervical cancer.在宫颈癌组织筛查中采用人乳头瘤病毒检测及细胞学分流
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Nov;95(11):1220-1227. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13013.
8
Long term results of follow-up after HPV self-sampling with devices Qvintip and HerSwab in women non-attending cervical screening programme.HPV 自我采样装置 Qvintip 和 HerSwab 在未参加宫颈癌筛查项目女性中的随访长期结果。
Radiol Oncol. 2021 Jan 6;55(2):187-195. doi: 10.2478/raon-2021-0001.
9
Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting.在随机环境中对原发性人乳头瘤病毒筛查与传统细胞学进行特定年龄评估。
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Dec 2;101(23):1612-23. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp367. Epub 2009 Nov 9.
10
Cervical screening with primary HPV testing or cytology in a population of women in which those aged 33 years or younger had previously been offered HPV vaccination: Results of the Compass pilot randomised trial.在一个33岁及以下女性此前已接种HPV疫苗的女性群体中,采用原发性HPV检测或细胞学进行宫颈癌筛查:指南针试点随机试验的结果。
PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 19;14(9):e1002388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002388. eCollection 2017 Sep.

引用本文的文献

1
Primary and Triage Cervical Screening Diagnostic Value of Methods for the Detection of Cervical Dysplasia.主要和初步的宫颈筛查方法对宫颈发育不良的诊断价值。
Biomed Res Int. 2022 Sep 17;2022:1930102. doi: 10.1155/2022/1930102. eCollection 2022.
2
Development of a Nomogram Predicting the Risk of Persistence/Recurrence of Cervical Dysplasia.预测宫颈发育异常持续/复发风险的列线图的开发
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Apr 9;10(4):579. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10040579.

本文引用的文献

1
An overview of cervical cancer epidemiology and prevention in Scandinavia.斯堪的纳维亚地区宫颈癌流行病学和预防概述。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Jul;97(7):795-807. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13313. Epub 2018 Feb 23.
2
Determinants of a GP visit and cervical cancer screening examination in Great Britain.英国全科医生就诊及宫颈癌筛查检查的决定因素。
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 5;12(4):e0174363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174363. eCollection 2017.
3
Women's Experiences of Inaccurate Breast Cancer Screening Results: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.
乳腺癌筛查结果不准确时女性的经历:一项系统综述与定性元分析
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016 Jul 1;16(16):1-22. eCollection 2016.
4
Human Papillomavirus Assays and Cytology in Primary Cervical Screening of Women Aged 30 Years and Above.30岁及以上女性宫颈癌初筛中的人乳头瘤病毒检测与细胞学检查
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 20;11(1):e0147326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147326. eCollection 2016.
5
Impact of opportunistic testing in a systematic cervical cancer screening program: a nationwide registry study.机会性检测在系统性宫颈癌筛查项目中的影响:一项全国性登记研究
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jul 21;15:681. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2039-0.
6
The validity of self-reported cancer screening history and the role of social disadvantage in Ontario, Canada.加拿大安大略省自我报告的癌症筛查史的有效性及社会劣势的作用。
BMC Public Health. 2015 Jan 29;15:28. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1441-y.
7
50 years of screening in the Nordic countries: quantifying the effects on cervical cancer incidence.50 年的北欧国家筛查:定量评估对宫颈癌发病率的影响。
Br J Cancer. 2014 Aug 26;111(5):965-9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.362. Epub 2014 Jul 3.
8
The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology.丹麦民事登记系统在流行病学中的应用。
Eur J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;29(8):541-9. doi: 10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3. Epub 2014 Jun 26.
9
Predictors of non-participation in cervical screening in Denmark.丹麦宫颈癌筛查未参与者的预测因素。
Cancer Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;38(2):174-80. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2013.12.007. Epub 2014 Jan 18.
10
How distressing is referral to colposcopy in cervical cancer screening?: a prospective quality of life study.在宫颈癌筛查中转诊行阴道镜检查有多令人痛苦?一项前瞻性生活质量研究。
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Jan;132(1):142-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.11.001. Epub 2013 Nov 9.