How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?

Excellent recommendations exist for studying therapeutic and diagnostic questions. We observe that good guidelines on assessment of evidence for screening questions are currently lacking. Guidelines for diagnostic research (STARD), involving systematic application of the reference test (gold standard) to all subjects of large study populations, are not pertinent in situations of screening for disease that is currently not yet present. A five‐step framework is proposed for assessing the potential use of a biomarker as a screening tool for cervical cancer: i) correlation studies establishing a trend between the rate of biomarker expression and severity of neoplasia; ii) diagnostic studies in a clinical setting where all women are submitted to verification by the reference standard; iii) biobank‐based studies with assessment in archived cytology samples of the biomarker in cervical cancer cases and controls; iv) prospective cohort studies with baseline assessment of the biomarker and monitoring of disease; v) randomised intervention trials aiming to observe reduced incidence of cancer (or its surrogate, severe dysplasia) in the experimental arm at subsequent screening rounds. The 5‐phases framework should guide researchers and test developers in planning assessment of new biomarkers and protect clinicians and stakeholders against premature claims for insufficiently evaluated products. © 2009 UICC.

[1]  J. Dillner,et al.  Cervical cytology biobanks as a resource for molecular epidemiology. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[2]  K. Lakshmaiah,et al.  HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  J. Cuzick,et al.  International agreement to join forces in synthesizing evidence on new methods for cervical cancer prevention. , 2009, Cancer letters.

[4]  M. Sherman,et al.  Utility of methylation markers in cervical cancer early detection: appraisal of the state-of-the-science. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[5]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older , 2009, International journal of cancer.

[6]  J. Dillner,et al.  Triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cervical cytology results: a meta-analysis of the HPV test positivity rate , 2009, Journal of cellular and molecular medicine.

[7]  J. Dillner,et al.  Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  C. Wheeler,et al.  Evidence for Frequent Regression of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia–Grade 2 , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[9]  G. Koliopoulos,et al.  p16INK4a immunostaining in cytological and histological specimens from the uterine cervix: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2009 .

[10]  Xueqiong Zhu,et al.  Proteomic identification of differentially-expressed proteins in squamous cervical cancer. , 2009, Gynecologic oncology.

[11]  Guglielmo Ronco,et al.  New paradigms in cervical cancer prevention: opportunities and risks , 2008, BMC women's health.

[12]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Commentary: Randomised trials of surgical and non-surgical treatment: a role model for the future , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  L. Massuger,et al.  Cytologic Detection of Cervical Abnormalities Using Liquid-Based Compared With Conventional Cytology: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  Holly Janes,et al.  Pivotal Evaluation of the Accuracy of a Biomarker Used for Classification or Prediction: Standards for Study Design , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  S. Rosso,et al.  Use of p16-INK4A overexpression to increase the specificity of human papillomavirus testing: a nested substudy of the NTCC randomised controlled trial. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[16]  K. Cuschieri,et al.  Human Papillomavirus mRNA and p16 Detection as Biomarkers for the Improved Diagnosis of Cervical Neoplasia , 2008, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[17]  L. Gaffikin,et al.  Avoiding verification bias in screening test evaluation in resource poor settings: a case study from Zimbabwe , 2008, Clinical trials.

[18]  W. Prendiville,et al.  Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  A. Lie,et al.  Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA testing as a predictive marker for cervical carcinoma , 2008, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[20]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India , 2008, International journal of cancer.

[21]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver Agreement in the Assessment of Components of Colposcopic Grading , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  P. Sparén,et al.  Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  Charlotte Paul,et al.  Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[24]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Cervical cancer screening following prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination. , 2008, Vaccine.

[25]  A. Siddiqi,et al.  Use of hyperspectral imaging to distinguish normal, precancerous, and cancerous cells , 2008, Cancer.

[26]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[27]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial , 2007, The Lancet.

[28]  J. Dillner,et al.  Human Papillomavirus and Papanicolaou Tests to Screen for Cervical Cancer , 2008 .

[29]  S. Wacholder,et al.  CIN2 Is a Much Less Reproducible and Less Valid Diagnosis than CIN3: Results from a Histological Review of Population-Based Cervical Samples , 2007, International journal of gynecological pathology : official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

[30]  Michele Follen,et al.  The clinical effectiveness of optical spectroscopy for the in vivo diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: where are we? , 2007, Gynecologic oncology.

[31]  T. Wright,et al.  2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Tests , 2007, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[32]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver Agreement in the Evaluation of Digitized Cervical Images , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[33]  A. Herbert,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology , 2007, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[34]  L. Gaffikin,et al.  Visual inspection with acetic acid as a cervical cancer test: accuracy validated using latent class analysis , 2007 .

[35]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[36]  A. Herbert,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cytology laboratories * , 2007, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[37]  Roger M Harbord,et al.  A unification of models for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. , 2007, Biostatistics.

[38]  Ulrike Dapp,et al.  Development, feasibility and performance of a health risk appraisal questionnaire for older persons , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[39]  M. von Knebel Doeberitz,et al.  Triage of women with ASCUS and LSIL cytology , 2006, Cancer.

[40]  P. Sparén,et al.  Methods for screening and diagnosis , 2007 .

[41]  J. Dillner,et al.  Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. , 2006, Vaccine.

[42]  Diane Solomon,et al.  Number of Cervical Biopsies and Sensitivity of Colposcopy , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[43]  Mark Schiffman,et al.  Colposcopy at a crossroads. , 2006, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[44]  H. Kitchener,et al.  A report on the current status of European research on the use of human papillomavirus testing for primary cervical cancer screening , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[45]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Inflation of Sensitivity of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Secondary to Correlated Error in Colposcopy , 2006, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[46]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Distribution of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2, 3 and Cancer on the Uterine Cervix , 2006, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[47]  J. Dillner,et al.  Clinical utility of HPV-DNA detection: triage of minor cervical lesions, follow-up of women treated for high-grade CIN: an update of pooled evidence. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[48]  R. DeSalle,et al.  The carcinogenicity of human papillomavirus types reflects viral evolution. , 2005, Virology.

[49]  P. Qiu The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2005 .

[50]  S. Pagliusi,et al.  Efficacy and other milestones for human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. , 2004, Vaccine.

[51]  Y. Qiao,et al.  Colposcopically directed biopsy, random cervical biopsy, and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia II or worse. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[52]  Joakim Dillner,et al.  Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[53]  U Menon,et al.  Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study , 2003, The Lancet.

[54]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[55]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[56]  Joan L. Walker A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[57]  M. Sherman,et al.  Histopathologic extent of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 lesions in the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study: implications for subject safety and lead-time bias. , 2003, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[58]  T. Churches A proposed architecture and method of operation for improving the protection of privacy and confidentiality in disease registers , 2003, BMC medical research methodology.

[59]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[60]  Mark Sherman,et al.  The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. , 2002, JAMA.

[61]  J. T. Cox,et al.  Effects of age and human papilloma viral load on colposcopy triage: data from the randomized Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS). , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[62]  M S Pepe,et al.  Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[63]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.

[64]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. , 2001, JAMA.

[65]  Evan R. Myers,et al.  Accuracy of the Papanicolaou Test in Screening for and Follow‐up of Cervical Cytologic Abnormalities: A Systematic Review , 2001 .

[66]  E. Franco,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. , 2000, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[67]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[68]  A. Miller,et al.  Natural history of dysplasia of the uterine cervix. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[69]  P Glasziou,et al.  Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[70]  J M Simpson,et al.  Efficient study designs to assess the accuracy of screening tests. , 1994, American journal of epidemiology.

[71]  A. Östör,et al.  Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. , 1993, International Journal of Gynecological Pathology.

[72]  J. Habbema,et al.  Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results , 1993, British medical journal.

[73]  B. C. Choi,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. , 1992, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[74]  A. Miller,et al.  Screening for cancer of the cervix. , 1991, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[75]  J. Habbema,et al.  Epidemiological evidence for age-dependent regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer. , 1991, British Journal of Cancer.

[76]  B Bunnag,et al.  Comparing new and old screening tests when a reference procedure cannot be performed on all screenees. Example of automated cytometry for early detection of cervical cancer. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[77]  Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. , 1986, British medical journal.

[78]  P C Prorok,et al.  Evaluation of screening programmes for gynaecological cancer. , 1985, British Journal of Cancer.

[79]  J. Mandel,et al.  Screening in Chronic Disease , 1985 .

[80]  R A Greenes,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic tests when disease verification is subject to selection bias. , 1983, Biometrics.

[81]  Ja Wilson,et al.  Principles and practice of screening for disease , 1968 .