Randomized evaluation trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer: Results after 777,000 invitations

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 23-28

  Nieminen, Pekka ^a   Kotaniemi Talonen, Laura ^b   Hakama, Matti ^c   Tarkkanen, Jussi ^a   Martikainen, Jorma ^d   Toivonen, Terttu ^e   Ikkala, Jorma ^f   Anttila, Ahti ^b  

^a HELSINKI UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b FINNISH CANCER REGISTRY   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TAMPERE   (Finland)

^d Pathology Laboratory of the Finnish Cancer Society   (Finland)

^e Pathol Lab of Finnish Cancer Soc   (Finland)

^f Papa Center   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL EXAMINATION; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

ADULT; AGED; AUTOMATION; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33947322500     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: 14755793     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/096914107780154468     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Rozendaal L, Walboomers JM, van der Linden JC, et al. PCR-based high-risk HPV test in cervical cancer screening gives objective risk assessment of women with cytomorphologically normal cervical smears. Int J Cancer 1996;68:766-9
2. Sankaranarayanan R, Chatterji R, Shastri SS, et al. Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening of cervical neoplasia: results from a multicenter study in India. Int J Cancer 2004;112:341-7
3. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003;362:1871-6
4. Nieminen P, Vuorma S, Viikki M, et al. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2004;111:842-8
5. The Working Group of IARC. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention: Cervical Cancer Vol. 10. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005
6. Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Nieminen P, Anttila A, et al. Routine cervical screening with primary HPV testing and cytology triage protocol in a randomised setting. Br J Cancer 2005;93:862-7
7. Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Paraskevaidis E, Martin-Hirsch P, Dillner J. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:280-93
8. Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer CJLM, Clavel C, Koliopoulos G, Dillner J. Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 2006;24:78-89
9. Klinkhamer P, MeerdingWJ, Rosier PF, et al. Liquid-based cervical cytology. Cancer. 2003;99:263-71
10. Arbyn M, Abarca M. Is liquid based cytology an effective alternative for the conventional Pap smear to detect cervical cancer precursors? A systematic review and meta-analysis. IPH/EPI Reports Nr 2003-010. Misc: Brussels: Scientific Institute of Public health, 2003
11. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Assessment of techniques for cervical cancer screening. CCOHTA Report 1997;2E:1-33
12. Kok MR, Boon ME. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase in diagnostic consistency and positive scores. Cancer 1996;78:112-17
13. Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA, et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC system for cervical cytologic abnormalities. Biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol 1996;40:127-32
14. Nieminen P, Kotaniemi L, Hakama M, et al. A randomised public-health trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: performance with 470,000 invitations. Int J Cancer 2005;115:307-11
15. Anttila A, Nieminen P. Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2209-14
16. Nieminen P, Hakama M, Viikki M, et al. Prospective and randomised public-health trial on neural network-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: results of the first year. Int J Cancer 2003;103:422-6
17. McNutt L-A, Wu C, Xue X, et al. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:940-3
18. Boon ME. Cooperation of the image analyser and the cytologist In: Franco E, Monsonego J, eds. New Developments in Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1997;311-16
19. PRISMATIC Project Management Team. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. Lancet 1999;353:1381-5
20. Doornewaard H, van der Schouw YT, van der Graaf Y, et al. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. Mod Pathol 1999;12:995-1000
21. Duggan MA. Papnet-assisted, primary screening of cervico-vaginal smears. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2000;44:151-7
22. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Farnsworth A, et al. A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:75-81
23. Kalliala I, Anttila A, Pukkala E, Nieminen P. Risk of cervical and other cancers after conservative treatment of CIN. BMJ 2005;331:1183-5
24. Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Nieminen P, Hakama M, Seppänen J, Tarkkanen J, Anttila A. Significant variation in performance indicators of the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme by screening laboratory. Eur J Cancer 2007;169-74