Background Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women worldwide. With the introduction of organized cervical cytological screening programs, the incidence of cervical cancer has been dramatically reduced.
Objectives This study aimed to determine the new technology that can potentially afford unique advantages for cervical cancer screening.
Methods Cervical specimens collected in PreservCyt were processed for ThinPrep cytological test, the new technology test and human papillomavirus detection.
Results The concordance between the new technology and ThinPrep cytological test was 96.34%, with 931 cases positive and 148 cases negative with both tests (κ = 0.857). The sensitivity and the specificity of the new technology were 99.04% (931/940) and 82.22% (148/180), respectively. Youden index was 0.81. The positive predictive value and the negative predictive value were 96.68% (931/963) and 94.27% (148/157), respectively. In the 124 positive cases of the new technology, human papillomavirus DNA test was positive in 109 cases (87.9%) and negative in 15 cases (12.1%). Compared to the histopathological diagnosis, the sensitivity and the negative predictive value of the new technology were 98.57% (69/70) and 95.45% (21/22), respectively.
Conclusions The screening design will enable evaluation of several competing screening technologies in reducing the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer. In particular, if the new technology is used as the screening test, it can be a quick screening test and does not depend on the subjective judgment of the doctors. As such, it could potentially afford unique advantages for screening.
- Cervical cancer
- New technology
- Human papillomavirus
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
The research protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the bioscience of Zhengzhou University for medical and health research.
Gong and Shen contributed equally to this work and should be considered co–first authors.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.