Cost-effectiveness of liquid-based cytology with or without hybrid-capture II HPV test compared with conventional Pap smears: A study by the French Society of Clinical Cytology

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 33, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 338-343

  Cochand Priollet, Béatrix ^a   Cartier, Isabelle ^b   De Cremoux, Patricia ^c   Le Galès, Catherine ^d   Ziol, Marianne ^e   Molinié, Vincent ^f   Petitjean, Alain ^g   Dosda, Anne ^h   Merea, Estelle ^d   Biaggi, Annonciade ^e   Gouget, Isabelle ^h   Arkwright, Sylviane ^b   Vacher Lavenu, Marie Cécile ⁱ   Vielh, Philippe ^j   Coste, Joël ⁱ  

^a HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^b Laboratoire d'Anatomie et de Cytologie Pathologiques   (France)

^c INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

^d INSERM   (France)

^e HÔPITAL JEAN VERDIER   (France)

^f FOCH HOSPITAL   (France)

^g Centre de Pathologie   (France)

^h HÔPITAL LOUIS MOURIER   (France)

ⁱ Université Paris 5 ^*  (France)

^j INSTITUT GUSTAVE ROUSSY   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Conventional Pap smear; Cost effectiveness; HPV test; LBC

Indexed keywords

VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; COLPOSCOPY; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DNA SEQUENCE; FEMALE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIQUID BASED CYTOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; BIOPSY; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 27744435418     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20283     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Cochand-Priollet B, Le Galès C, de Crémoux P, et al. 20 monolayers French Society of Clinical Cytology Study Group. Cost-effectiveness of monolayers and human papillomavirus testing compared to that of conventional papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening: protocol of the study of the French Society of Clinical Cytology. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;24:412-420.
2. Cochand-Priollet B, Vincent S, Vielh Ph. Cytopathology in France. Cytopathology 2004;15:163-166.
3. Globocan-IARC. www-dep.iarc.fr/globocan/globocan.html
4. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al. Conventional Pap smears, monolayers and HPV DNA testing for cervical screening. Results of an independent study of the French Society of Clinical Cytology. BMJ 2003;326:733-737.
5. De Cremoux P, Coste J, Sastre-Garau X, et al. Efficiency of Hybrid Capture II HPV-DNA test in cervical cancer screening. Study of the French Society of Clinical Cytology. Am J Clin Med 2003;120:492-499.
6. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993;37:115-124.
7. Stafl A, Wilbanks GD. An international terminology of colposcopy. report of the Nomenclature Committee of the International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:313-314.
8. Merea E, Le Galès C, Cochand-Priollet B, et al. Cost of screening for cancerous and precancerous lesions of the cervix. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:251-257.
9. Khalbuss WE, Rudomina D, Kauff ND, Chuang L, Melamed MR. SpinThin, a simple, inexpensive technique for preparation of thinlayer cervical cytology from liquid-based specimen. Data on 791 cases. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2000;90:135-142.
10. Minge L, Fleming M, Van Geem T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte Prep system versus conventional cervical cytology. Comparison based on 2, 156 cases. J Reprod Med 2000;45:179-184.
11. Park IA, Lee SN, Chae SW, Park KH, Kim JW, Lee HP. Comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep Pap tests and conventional Papanicolaou smears on the basis of the histologic diagnosis: a clinical study of women with cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol 2001;45:525-531.
12. Belinson JL, Pan QJ, Biscotti C, et al. Primary screening with liquid-based cytology in an unscreened population in rural China, with an emphasis on reprocessing unsatisfactory samples. Acta Cytol 2002;46:470-474.
13. Conduite à tenir devant une patiente ayant un frottis cervico-utérin anormal. Actualisation 2002. ANAES, 2003.
14. Bishop JW, Bigner SH, Colgan TJ, et al. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results. Acta Cytol 1998;42:189-197.
15. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 1999;87:48-55.
16. Monsonego J, Autillo-Touati A, Bergeron Ch, et al. Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening. A multicentre study. Br J Cancer 2001;84:360-366.
17. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998;42:203-208.
18. Diaz Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Performance of a fluid-based, thinlayer papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:817-821.
19. Limaye A, Coonor AJ, Huang X, Luff R. Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests and fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:143-145.
20. United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). http:/www.aafp.org/afp/20030415/us.html
21. Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001;56:765-774.
22. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology screening for cervical cancer: review of existing guidance number 5 (final appraisal determination). www.nice.org.uk [accessed 2003].
23. Bergeron C, Jeannel D, Poveda J, Cassonnet P, Orth G. Human papillomavirus testing in women with mild cytologic atypia. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:821-827.
24. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, Gabriel R, Quereux C, Birembaut P. Hybrid caputure II, a new sensitive test for human papillomavirus detection. Comparison with hybrid capture I and PCR results in cervical lesions. J Clin Pathol 1998;51:737-740.
25. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J cancer 2001;84:1616-623.
26. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Prater A. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:1-196.
27. Riethmuller D, Gay C, Bertrand X, et al. Genital human papillomavirus infection among women recruited for routine cervical cancer screening or for colposcopy determined by hybrid capture 11 and polymerase chain reaction. Diagn Mol Pathol 1999;8:157-164.
28. Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Scott DR, et al. Comparison between prototype hybrid capture III HPV and hybrid capture II human papillomavirus DNA assays for detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:4022-4030.
29. Crum CP. Type specific testing for human papillomavirus. N Engl J Med 2003;349:614-615.
30. Clavel C, Cucherousset J, lorenzato M, et al. Negative human papillomavirus testing in normal smears selects a population at low risk for developing high-grade cervical lesions. Br J Cancer 2004;4:1803-1808.
31. Woodman CBJ, Collins S, Winter H, et al. Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal short study. Lancet 2001;357:1830-1836.