Hasil untuk "Cytology"

D. Solomon, M. Schiffman, R. Tarone

C. Guthrie, G. Fink

M. J. Hewitt, M. Mcphail, L. Possamai et al.

D. Saslow, C. Runowicz, D. Solomon et al.

Y. Nikiforov, N. Ohori, S. Hodak et al.

J. Hawkes

H. Hoffmann

Thomas C Wright, M. Stoler, C. Behrens et al.

OBJECTIVES ATHENA evaluated the cobas HPV Test as the primary screen for cervical cancer in women ≥25years. This reports the 3-year end-of-study results comparing the performance of HPV primary screening to different screening and triage combinations. METHODS 42,209 women ≥25years were enrolled and had cytology and hrHPV testing. Women with abnormal cytology (≥atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) and those HPV positive were referred to colposcopy. Women not reaching the study endpoint of CIN2+ entered the 3-year follow-up phase. RESULTS 3-year CIR of CIN3+ in cytology-negative women was 0.8% (95% CI; 0.5-1.1%), 0.3% (95% CI 0.1-0.7%) in HPV-negative women, and 0.3% (95% CI; 0.1-0.6%) in cytology and HPV negative women. The sensitivity for CIN3+ of cytology was 47.8% (95% CI; 41.6-54.1%) compared to 61.7% (95% CI; 56.0-67.5%) for the hybrid strategy (cytology if 25-29years and cotesting with cytology and HPV if ≥30years) and 76.1% (95% CI; 70.3-81.8%) for HPV primary. The specificity for CIN3+ was 97.1% (95% CI; 96.9-97.2%), 94.6% (95% CI; 94.4-94.8%), and 93.5% (95% CI; 93.3-93.8%) for cytology, hybrid strategy, and HPV primary, respectively. Although HPV primary detects significantly more cases of CIN3+ in women ≥25years than either cytology or hybrid strategy, it requires significantly more colposcopies. However, the number of colposcopies required to detect a single CIN3+ is the same as for the hybrid strategy. CONCLUSIONS HPV primary screening in women ≥25years is as effective as a hybrid screening strategy that uses cytology if 25-29years and cotesting if ≥30years. However, HPV primary screening requires less screening tests.

E. Crosbie, M. Einstein, S. Franceschi et al.

J. Frost, W. C. Ball, P. M. Levin et al.

C. Meijer, J. Berkhof, P. Castle et al.

L. Yassa, E. Cibas, C. Benson et al.

Y. Nikiforov, D. Steward, Toni M. Robinson-Smith et al.

D. Sigee

M. Nikiforova, S. Mercurio, Abigail I. Wald et al.

Molecular tests have clinical utility for thyroid nodules with indeterminate fine‐needle aspiration (FNA) cytology, although their performance requires further improvement. This study evaluated the analytical performance of the newly created ThyroSeq v3 test.

P. J. Maver, M. Poljak

BACKGROUND Cytology-based screening has been a cornerstone of cervical cancer prevention for decades. Following extensive evidence demonstrating higher sensitivity and accuracy, lower variability, and better reproducibility of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening compared to conventional or liquid-based cytology, recent European guidelines strongly recommend primary HPV-based screening over standard cytology-based screening. In addition, HPV-based screening offers the possibility of self-sampling and makes possible longer screening intervals in women with negative screening results. OBJECTIVES We summarize the current status of implementation of HPV-based screening in Europe, describe the real-life experience and challenges from countries already performing HPV-based screening, and briefly review immediate and long-term plans for screening implementation in selected European countries. SOURCES Data were obtained from peer-reviewed literature, personal communication with experts and authorities involved in formulating national recommendations and practical guidelines, and relevant national websites. CONTENT As of July 2019, the Netherlands and Turkey are the only European countries with fully implemented national HPV-based cervical cancer screening. Italy, Sweden, and Finland have already implemented HPV-based screening in several regions, and several other countries are at various stages of implementation. Some countries are considering transitioning from cytology-based to HPV-based screening, but are struggling with the suboptimal performance of current population-based programs. Generally, implementation of HPV-based screening has resulted in higher colposcopy referral rates, but also higher detection rates of CIN3+ lesions and cervical cancers requiring immediate treatment. Cytology is mostly used as a triage test, although other strategies are under consideration in some countries. IMPLICATIONS HPV-based screening is best suited in organized population-based screening settings. In 2019, cervical cancer screening policies across Europe vary greatly. Experience in countries with national and regional HPV-based screening already implemented is generally very positive. Urgent action is needed in many European countries, especially those with suboptimal opportunistic cytology-based cervical cancer screening.

Jack Yang, V. Schnadig, R. Logroño et al.

R. Gilbert, S. Shin, C. Guard et al.

J. Melnikow, Jillian T Henderson, B. Burda et al.

Importance Cervical cancer can be prevented with detection and treatment of precancerous cell changes caused primarily by high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV), the causative agents in more than 90% of cervical cancers. Objective To systematically review benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening for hrHPV to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials from January 2011 through February 15, 2017; surveillance through May 25, 2018. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing primary hrHPV screening alone or hrHPV cotesting (both hrHPV testing and cytology) with cytology (Papanicolaou [Pap] test) screening alone. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and quality rated included studies; data were qualitatively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures Invasive cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); false-positive, colposcopy, and biopsy rates; psychological harms. Results Eight RCTs (n = 410 556), 5 cohort studies (n = 402 615), and 1 individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (n = 176 464) were included. Trials were heterogeneous for screening interval, number of rounds, and protocol. For primary hrHPV screening, evidence was consistent across 4 trials demonstrating increased detection of CIN 3 or worse (CIN 3+) in round 1 (relative risk [RR] range, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.09-2.37] to 7.46 [95% CI, 1.02-54.66]). Among 4 hrHPV cotesting trials, first-round CIN 3+ detection was not significantly different between screening groups; RRs for cumulative CIN 3+ detection over 2 screening rounds ranged from 0.91 to 1.13. In first-round screening, false-positive rates for primary hrHPV screening ranged from 6.6% to 7.4%, compared with 2.6% to 6.5% for cytology. For cotesting, false-positives ranged from 5.8% to 19.9% in the first round of screening, compared with 2.6% to 10.9% for cytology. First-round colposcopy rates were also higher, ranging 1.2% to 7.9% for primary hrHPV testing, compared with 1.1% to 3.1% for cytology alone; colposcopy rates for cotesting ranged from 6.8% to 10.9%, compared with 3.3% to 5.2% for cytology alone. The IPD meta-analysis of data from 4 cotesting trials and 1 primary hrHPV screening trial found lower risk of invasive cervical cancer with any hrHPV screening compared with cytology alone (pooled RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40-0.89]). Conclusions and Relevance Primary hrHPV screening detected higher rates of CIN 3+ at first-round screening compared with cytology. Cotesting trials did not show initial increased CIN 3+ detection. Both hrHPV screening strategies had higher false-positive and colposcopy rates than cytology, which could lead to more treatments with potential harms.

Magdalena Onyszczuk, Bogna Drozdzowska

Background:Fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology for salivary gland lesions is sensitive and specific for diagnosing and treating salivary gland pathologies. The objective of the Milan System for Reporting Salivary Gland Cytopathology (MSRSGC) is to organize the diagnostic information from the FNA into a uniform reporting terminology. Aims:The study was conducted retrospectively to reclassify previous diagnoses into the MSRSGC categories to determine the cytohistological concordance and assess the risk stratification by calculating the risk of malignancy (ROM) for different categories. Materials and Methods:A total of 248 FNA cases of salivary gland lesions were analyzed and reclassified according to the second edition of the MSRSGC. The histological diagnosis was considered the gold standard. The ROM for each category was calculated based on 101 histopathologic follow-up cases. Results:Of the 248 patients, 1.2% were classified as nondiagnostic, 37.9% as nonneoplastic, 1.2% as atypia of undetermined significance (AUS), 52.8% as benign neoplasm, 0.4% as uncertain malignant potential (SUMP), 0.4% as suspicious of malignancy (SFM), and 6.1% as malignant neoplasm. Histopathological correlation was available in 101 cases. The ROM was 0% for nonneoplastic lesions and benign neoplasms, and 100% for AUS, SUMP, SFM, and malignant categories. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FNA cytology in diagnosing salivary gland lesions using MSRSGC were found to be 76.5%, 100%, 100%, and 95.3%, respectively. Conclusion:The use of the MSRSGC helps in triaging patients with salivary gland lesions, increases the effectiveness of communication between clinicians and pathologists, and thus facilitates individualized patient management.