首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>British Medical Journal >Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath ThinPrep and conventional cytology: population based study
【2h】

Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath ThinPrep and conventional cytology: population based study

机译:使用SurePathThinPrep和常规细胞学常规筛查常规细胞学样本后宫颈癌的发病率:基于人群的研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

>Objective To compare the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed within 72 months after a normal screening sample between conventional cytology and liquid based cytology tests SurePath and ThinPrep. >Design Retrospective population based cohort study. >Setting Nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), January 2000 to March 2013. >Population Women with 5 924 474 normal screening samples (23 833 123 person years). >Exposure Use of SurePath or ThinPrep versus conventional cytology as screening test. >Main outcome measure 72 month cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer after a normal screening sample for each screening test. Cox regression analyses assessed the hazard ratios, adjusted for calendar time, age, screening history, and socioeconomic status and including laboratories as random effects. >Results The 72 month cumulative cancer incidence was 58.5 (95% confidence interval 54.6 to 62.7) per 100 000 normal conventional cytology samples, compared with 66.8 (56.7 to 78.7) for ThinPrep and 44.6 (37.8 to 52.6) for SurePath. Compared with conventional cytology, the hazard of invasive cancer was 19% lower (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.99) for SurePath, mainly caused by a 27% lower hazard (0.73, 0.57 to 0.93) of a clinically detected cancer. For ThinPrep, the hazard was on average 15% higher (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.95 to 1.38), mainly caused by a 56% higher hazard of a screen detected cancer (1.56, 1.17 to 2.08). >Conclusions These findings should provoke reconsideration of the assumed similarity in sensitivity to detect progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between different types of liquid based cytology and conventional cytology.
机译:>目的比较常规细胞学和液体细胞学检测SurePath和ThinPrep在正常筛查样本后72个月内诊断出的宫颈癌的累积发生率。 >设计。基于回顾性人群的队列研究。 >设置:2000年1月至2013年3月在荷兰(PALGA)建立的全国性网络和组织病理学和细胞病理学注册资料。>人口:具有5 924 474正常筛查样本的妇女(23 833 123人年)。 >接触:使用SurePath或ThinPrep与常规细胞学进行筛查测试。 >主要结局指标:每次筛查试验均经过正常筛查样本后,浸润性宫颈癌的累积发病率为72个月。 Cox回归分析评估了危险比,并针对日历时间,年龄,筛查史和社会经济状况进行了调整,并包括实验室作为随机效应。 >结果每100 000个常规常规细胞学样本的72个月累积癌症发病率为58.5(95%置信区间54.6至62.7),而ThinPrep为66.8(56.7至78.7),而44.6(37.8至52.6)用于SurePath。与传统细胞学相比,SurePath浸润性癌症的危险性降低19%(危险比0.81,95%可信区间0.66至0.99),主要是由临床检测到的癌症的危险性降低27%(0.73,0.57至0.93)引起的。对于ThinPrep,危害平均要高15%(危害比1.15,0.95至1.38),主要是由于筛查检测到的癌症的危害高56%(1.56,1.17至2.08)。 >结论:这些发现应引起人们重新考虑假定的相似性,以检测不同类型的液基细胞学和常规细胞学之间进行性宫颈上皮内瘤变。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号