Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31494606›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Performance of OncoE6

Zacharie Ndizeye, Sonia Menon, Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden, Catherine Sauvaget, Y Jacquemyn, John-Paul Bogers, Ina Benoy, Davy Vanden Broeck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Zacharie NdizeyeCommunity Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Burundi, Bujumbura, Burundi zndizeye@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3235-9494
Sonia MenonGlobal Health Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7761-7162
Jean-Pierre Van GeertruydenGlobal Health Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Catherine SauvagetScreening Group, Early Detection and Prevention Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
Y JacquemynGlobal Health Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
John-Paul BogersInternational Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ina BenoyLaboratory of Molecular Pathology, AML Sonic Healthcare, Antwerp, Belgium.
Davy Vanden BroeckInternational Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
University of Antwerp · BECentre international de recherche sur le cancer · FRGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNew rapid and low-cost molecular tests for cervical cancer screening, such as the OncoE6 Cervical Test, are emerging and could be alternatives for low-income and middle-income countries. To this end, we evaluated the clinical performance of the OncoE6 Cervical Test in detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) among HIV-infected women in Bujumbura, Burundi.

methodsFrom June to December 2017, a cross-sectional study was conducted in 680 HIV-positive women at the University Hospital. Women aged 25-65 years who declared having had vaginal intercourse were consecutively recruited, and cervical specimens for OncoE6, liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping were obtained and visual inspection with acetic acid performed. Thereafter, participants underwent a colposcopic examination. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the different tests were calculated with reference to 'colposcopic-histological' diagnoses, and areas under the receiver operating curves of OncoE6 and cytology tests were compared.

resultsThe prevalence of CIN was 4.9%, and OncoE6 positivity was 3.1%. OncoE6 sensitivity varied from poor to low with increasing disease severity (42.1%, 95% CI 19.9% to 64.3% at CIN2+ threshold; and 58.3%, 95% CI 30.4% to 86.2% at CIN3+ threshold). OncoE6 had the highest specificity compared with all other tests used together. The performance of the OncoE6 test was significantly lower compared with cytology at atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASCUS+) cut-off (AUC=0.68 vs 0.85, p=0.03) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL+) cut-off (AUC=0.68 vs 0.83, p=0.04) for CIN2+ diagnoses. However, the performance of the OncoE6 test was similar to that of cytology at high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL+) cut-off (AUC=0.68 vs 0.76; p=0.30) for CIN2+ diagnoses and was also similar to that of cytology at all cut-offs (ASCUS+, LSIL+ and HSIL+) for CIN3+ diagnoses (p1=0.76, p2=0.95 and p3=0.50, respectively).

conclusionThe current OncoE6 test proved to be a point-of-care test. However, given its poor performance for CIN2+ diagnoses, we do not recommend it for primary screening. We recommend to enrich it with more oncogenic HPV types, which may improve the performance of the test akin to that of cytology.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAtypical Squamous Cells of the CervixBiopsyBurundiCarcinoma, Squamous CellColposcopyCross-Sectional StudiesCytological TechniquesFemaleHIV InfectionsHuman Papillomavirus DNA TestsHumansMiddle AgedOncogene Proteins, ViralPapillomaviridaeOncogene Proteins, ViralBurundiCervical cancerepidemiologyHIV & AIDSHPVOncoE6 performanceOncoE6TM Cervical Testscreening

Identifiers

PMID31494606
PMCPMC6731839
OpenAlexW2971921352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.