Erratum: Effect of VIA Screening by Primary Health Workers: Randomized Controlled Study in Mumbai, India (JNCI: J Natl Cancer Inst (2014) 106: 3 (dju009) DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju009);Effect of VIA screening by primary health workers: Randomized controlled study in Mumbai, India

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 106, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 480-

  Shastri, Surendra S ^a   Mittra, Indraneel ^a   Mishra, Gauravi A ^a   Gupta, Subhadra ^a   Dikshit, Rajesh ^a   Singh, Shalini ^b   Badwe, Rajendra A ^a  

^a TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (India)

^b PharmaOps Horsham   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CHILDBIRTH; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HIGH SCHOOL; HOUSEWIFE; HUMAN; INCOME; INDIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MARRIAGE; MARRIED PERSON; MORTALITY; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; OCCUPATION; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIMARY SCHOOL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROGENY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIGION; RISK REDUCTION; SCREENING TEST; SELF CONCEPT; SELF EMPLOYMENT; SEPARATED PERSON; SINGLE WOMAN; TUMOR INVASION; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VISUAL INSPECTION WITH ACETIC ACID; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH EDUCATION; INCIDENCE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

ACETIC ACID; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; DYES, REAGENTS, INDICATORS, MARKERS AND BUFFERS;

ACETIC ACID; ADULT; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INDIA; INDICATORS AND REAGENTS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASM STAGING; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84898754919     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab201     Document Type: Erratum

References (29)

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893-2917.
2. Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, et al. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011;378(9801):1461-1484.
3. Dikshit R, Gupta PC, Ramasundarahettige C, et al. Cancer mortality in India: a nationally representative survey. Lancet. 2012;379(9828):1807-1816.
4. Singh V, Sehgal A, Luthra UK. Screening for cervical cancer by direct inspection. BMJ. 1992;304(6826):534-535.
5. Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening Programme Recommendations of the expert group meeting, 18-19 November 2006; Government of India-World Health Organization Collaborative Programme (2004-2005). Department of Cytology & Gynecological Pathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, June 2006. http://www.cytoindia.com/cytology%20eqa/ ccsp%20guidelines.pdf. Accessed December 19, 2013.
6. Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(20):2158-2168.
7. Sankaranarayanan R, Gaffikin L, Jacob M, Sellors J, Robles S. A critical assessment of screening methods for cervical neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89(Suppl 2):S4-S12.
8. Sankaranarayanan R, Esmy PO, Rajkumar R, et al. Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2007;370(9585):398-406.
9. Sankaranarayanan R, Wesley RS. A Practical Manual on Visual Screening for Cervical Neoplasia. IARC technical publication no. 41 Lyon Cedex, France: IARC Press; 2003
10. Tata Memorial Centre. Evidence-based management for cervical cancer. https://tmc.gov.in/clinicalguidelines/EBM/Vol4/cervical.htm. Accessed August 8, 2013.
11. Kavarana NM, Kamat MR, Kurkure AP, Yeole BB, Methar SK. Cancer Morbidity and Mortality in Greater Mumbai. Mumbai, India: Indian Cancer Society; 1999.
12. US Census Bureau. Population pyramid graph - custon region - India. http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/region. php?N=%20Results%20&T=12&A=separate&RT=0&Y=2012&R=- 1&C=IN. Accessed August 8, 2013.
13. Mittra I, Mishra GA, Singh S, Aranke S, Notani P, Badwe R, et al. A cluster randomized, controlled trial of breast and cervix cancer screening in Mumbai, India: methodology and interim results after three rounds of screening. Int J Cancer. 2010;126(4):976-984.
14. Malila N, Leinonen M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Laurila P, Tarkkanen J, Hakama M. The HPV test has similar sensitivity but more overdiagnosis than the Pap test - a randomised health services study on cervical cancer screening in Finland. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(9):2141-2147.
15. Schiffman M, Solomon D. Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127(8):946-949.
16. Gupta S, Sodhani P. Reducing "atypical squamous cells" overdiagnosis on cervicovaginal smears by diligent cytology screening. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40(9):764-769.
17. Al-Nafussi AI, Colquhoun MK. Mild cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 1): a histological overdiagnosis. Histopathology. 1990;17(6):557-561.
18. Cibas ES, Browne TJ, Bassichis MH, Lee KR. Enlarged squamous cell nuclei in cervical cytologic specimens from perimenopausal women ("PM Cells"): a cause of ASC overdiagnosis. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;124(1):58-61.
19. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988;297(6654):943-948.
20. Frisell J, Eklund G, Hellstrom L, Lidbrink E, Rutqvist LE, Somell A. Randomized study of mammography screening - preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;18(1):49-56.
21. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985;1(8433):829-832.
22. Marcus PM, Bergstralh EJ, Fagerstrom RM, et al. Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: impact of extended follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(16):1308-1316.
23. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310- 1319.
24. Pisani P, Parkin DM, Ngelangel C, et al. Outcome of screening by clinical examination of the breast in a trial in the Philippines. Int J Cancer. 2006;118(1):149-154.
25. Dinshaw K, Mishra G, Shastri S, et al. Determinants of compliance in a cluster randomised controlled trial on screening of breast and cervix cancer in Mumbai, India. Compliance to screening. Oncology. 2007;73(3-4):145-153.
26. Dinshaw K, Mishra G, Shastri S, et al. Determinants of compliance in a cluster randomised controlled trial on screening of breast and cervix cancer in Mumbai, India. 2 Compliance to referral and treatment. Oncology. 2007;73(3-4):154-161.
27. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1385-1394.
28. Segi M. Cancer mortality for selected sites in 24 countries (1950-57). Sendai, Japan: Department of Public Health, Tohoku University of Medicine; 1960.
29. Doll R, Payne PM, Waterhouse JAH. Cancer Incidence in Five Countries. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1966.