Bayesian estimation of performance measures of cervical cancer screening tests in the presence of covariates and absence of a gold standard

Cancer Informatics

Volumn 6, Issue , 2008, Pages 33-46

  Martinez, Edson Zangiacomi ^a   Louzada Neto, Francisco ^b   Derchain, Sophie Françoise Mauricette ^c   Achcar, Jorge Alberto ^a,b   Gontijo, Renata Clementino ^c   Sarian, Luis Otávio Zanatta ^c   Syrjänen, Kari Juhani ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO CARLOS   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^d TURKU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Finland)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Cervical cytology; Diagnostic tests; Hybrid Capture II; Latent variables; Visual inspection with acetic acid

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PREDICTOR VARIABLE; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 49649095601     PISSN: 11769351     EISSN: 11769351     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/117693510800600002     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Begg, C.B. and Greenes, R.A. 1983. Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. Biometrics, 39:207-215.
2. Zhou, X. 1983. Maximum likelihood estimators of sensitivity and specificity corrected for verification bias. Commun Statis Theory Meth., 22:3177-3198.
3. Hui, S.L. and Walter, S.D. 1980. Estimating the error rates of diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 36:167-171.
4. Joseph, L., Gyorkos, T.W. and Coupal, L. 1985. Bayesian estimation of disease prevalence and the parameters of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard. Am J Epidemiol, 141:263-272.
5. Hitt, E. 2003. Cancer in the Americas. Lancet Oncol, 4:9.
6. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria Nacional de Assistência à Saúde. Instituto Nacional do Câncer. Estimativas da incidência e mortalidade por câncer no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2002. Available on website: 〈http://www.inca.org.br/cancer/ epide miologia/estimativa2002/estimativas.html〉.
7. Mitchell, M.F., Schottenfeld, D., Tortolero-Luna, G. and Cantor, S.B. 1998. Richards-Kortum R. Colposcopy for the diagnosis of squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol, 91:626-631.
8. Hopman, E.H., Kenemans, P. and Helmerhorst, T.J. 1998. Positive predictive rate of colposcopic examination of the cervix uteri: an overview of literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 53:97-106.
9. Begg, C.B. 1987. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med, 6:411-423.
10. Hui, S.L. and Zhou, X.H. 1998. Evaluation of diagnostic tests without gold standards. Stat Methods Med Res, 7:354-370.
11. Zhou, X.H. 1998. Correcting for verification bias in studies of a diagnostic test's accuracy. Stat Methods Med Res, 7:337-353.
12. McCrory, D.C., Matchar, D.B., Bastian, L. et al. 1999. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment n.5. (Prepared by Duke University under Contract n. 290-97-0014). AHCPR publication n. 99-E010. Rockville: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
13. Dendukuri, N. and Joseph, L. 2001. Bayesian approaches to modelling the conditional dependence between multiple diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 57:208-217.
14. Faraone, S.V. and Tsuang, M.T. 1994. Measuring diagnostic accuracy in the absence of a "gold standard". Am J Psychiatry, 151:650-657.
15. Qu, Y., Tan, M. and Kutner, M.H. 1996. Random effects models in latent class analysis for evaluating accuracy of diagnostic tests. Biometrics, 52:797-810.
16. Hadgu, A. and Qu, Y. 1998. A biomedical application of latent models with random effects. Appl Statist, 47:603-616.
17. Tanner, M. and Wong, W. 1987. The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. J Am Statist Ass, 82:528-550.
18. Gelfand, A.E. and Smith, AFM. 1990. Sampling Based Approaches to Calculating Marginal Densities. J Am Stat Assoc, 85:398-409.
19. Gelfand, A.E. 2000. Gibbs sampling. J Am Stat Assoc, 95:1300-1304.
20. Syrjanen, K., Naud, P., Derchain, S. et al. 2005. Comparing PAP smear cytology, aided visual inspection, screening colposcopy, cervicography and HPV testing as optional screening tools in Latin America. Study design and baseline data of the LAMS study. Anticancer Res, 25:3469-3480.
21. Sarian, L.O., Derchain, S.F., Naud, P. et al. 2005. Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America. This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study. J Med Screen, 12:142-149.
22. Solomon, D., Davey, D., Kurman, R. et al. 2002. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA, 287:2114-2119.
23. Blumenthal, P. and Sanghvi, H. 1997. Atlas for unaided visual inspection of the cervix. Baltimore and Harare: JHPIEGO Corporation and University of Zimbabwe Medical School.
24. Nanda, K., McCrory, D.C., Myers, E.R. et al. 2000. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med, 132:810-819.
25. Belinson, J.L., Pretorius, R.G., Zhang, W.H., Wu, L.Y., Qiao, Y.L. and Elson, P. 2001. Cervical cancer screening by simple visual inspection after acetic acid. Obstet Gynecol, 98:441-444.
26. University of Zimbabwe/JHPIEGO Cervical Cancer Project. Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical-cancer screening: test qualities in a primary care setting. Lancet 1999; 353:869-73.
27. Schiffman, M., Herrero, R., Hildensheim, A. et al. 2000. HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA, 283:87-93.
28. Wright, T.C., Jr, Lynette, D., Kuhn, L., Pollack, A. and Lorincz, A. 2000. HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA, 283:81-86.
29. Box, GEP. and Tiao, G.C. 1992. Bayesian Inference in Statistical Analysis. Reprint edition. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
30. Altman, D.G. and Bland, J.M. 1994. Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ, 309:102.
31. Franco, E.L. 2003. Primary screening of cervical cancer with human papillomavirus tests. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 31:89-96.
32. Geweke J. 1992. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. Bayesian Statistics 4 ; Bernardo, J.M.; Berger, J.O.; Dawid, A.P and.Smith, A.F.M., Eds.; Clarendom Press: Oxford, 169-94.
33. Carlin, B.P. and Louis, T.A. 2000. Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC,
34. Koss, L.G. 2000. Human papillomavirus testing as a screening tool for cervical cancer. JAMA, 283:2525.
35. Shlay, J.C., Dunn, T., Byers, T., Barón, A.E. and Douglas, J.M. 2000. Prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2-3 using risk assessment and human papillomavirus testing in women with atypia on Papanicolaou Smears. Obstet Gynecol, 96:410-416.
36. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G. and Carlin, B.P. 2002. van der Linde A Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). J Roy Statist Soc B, 64:583-640.
37. Franco, E.L. and Ferenczy, A. 1999. Assessing gains in diagnostic utility when human papillomavirus testing is used as an adjunct to papanicolaou smear in the triage of women with cervical cytologic abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 181:382-386.
38. Macaskill, P., Walter, S.D., Irwig, L. and Franco, E.L. 2002. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests. Statis Med, 21:2527-2546.
39. Brenner, H. How independent are multiple "independent" diagnostic classifications?. Stat Med,
40. Espeland, M.A. and Handelman, S.L. 1989. Using latent class models to characterize and assess relative error in discrete measurements. Biometrics, 45:587-599
41. Yang, I. and Becker, M.P. 1997. Latent variable modeling of diagnostic accuracy. Biometrics, 53:948-958.
42. Ratman, S., Franco, E.L. and Ferenczy, A. 2000. Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 9:945-951.
43. Coste, J., Cochand-Priollet, B., de Cremoux, P. et al. 2003. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ, 326:733.
44. Schiffman, M., Hildesheim, A., Herrero, R. and Bratti, M. 2000. In reply: human papillomavirus testing as a screening tool for cervical cancer. JAMA, 283:2525-2526.
45. Londhe, M., George, S.S. and Seshadri, L. 1997. Detection of CIN by naked eye visualization after application of acetic acid. Indian J Cancer, 34:88-91.
46. Sankaranarayanan, R., Wesley, R., Somanathan, T. et al. 1998. Visual inspection of the uterine cervix after the application of acetic acid in the detection of cervical carcinoma and its precursors. Cancer, 83:2150-2156.
47. Sankaranarayanan, R., Shyamalayumary, B., Wesley, R., Sreedevi Amma, N., Parkin, D.M. and Nair, M.K. 1999. Visual inspection with acetic acid in the early detection of cervical cancer and precursors. Int J Cancer, 80:161-163.
48. Denny, L., Kuhn, L., Pollack, A., Wainwright, H. and Wright, TC Jr. 2000. Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening in resource-poor settings. Cancer, 89:826-833.
49. Denny, L., Kuhn, L., Pollack, A. and Wright, TC Jr. 2002. Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening: an analysis of factors influencing test performance. Cancer, 94:1699-1707.
50. Parmigiani, G. 2002. Measuring uncertainty in complex decision analysis models. Stat Methods Med Res, 11:513-537.
51. Koss, L.G. 2000. Human papillomavirus testing as a screening tool for cervical cancer. JAMA, 283:2525-2526.
52. Smith, AFM. and Roberts, G.O. 1993. Bayesian Computation via the Gibbs Sampler and Related MCMC Methods. J R Stat SocB , 55:3-24.