Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31821501›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2020

Estimating the Natural History of Cervical Carcinogenesis Using Simulation Models: A CISNET Comparative Analysis.

Emily A Burger, Inge M C M de Kok, Emily Groene, James Killen, Karen Canfell, Shalini Kulasingam, Karen M Kuntz, Suzette Matthijsse, Catherine Regan, Kate T Simms and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Impact of Cholecalciferol Supplementation on Radiotherapy Outcomes in Advanced Cervical Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026
    Article
  13. Medicaid expansion and overall mortality among women with cervical cancer.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Optimizing the Harms and Benefits of Cervical Screening in a Partially Vaccinated Population in Ontario, Canada: A Modeling Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Emily A BurgerHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Inge M C M de KokErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Emily GroeneUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
James KillenCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Karen CanfellCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Shalini KulasingamUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Karen M Kuntz
Suzette MatthijsseErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Catherine ReganHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Kate T SimmsCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Megan A SmithCancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Stephen SyHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Fernando Alarid-EscuderoDrug Policy Program, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE)-CONACyT, Aguascalientes, Mexico.
Vivek VaidyanathanUniversity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Marjolein van BallegooijenErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jane J KimHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Harvard University · USErasmus MC · NLThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Minnesota · USCentro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas · MXMassachusetts Department of Public Health · US

Funding

Comparative Modeling to Inform Cervical Cancer Control PoliciesU01CA199334 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI BARNABAS, RUANNE VANESSA, CANFELL, KAREN · 2015 to 2019
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA199334
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced cervical cancer (CC) is not directly observable, yet the age of HPV acquisition and duration of preclinical disease (dwell time) influences the effectiveness of alternative preventive policies. We performed a Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) comparative modeling analysis to characterize the age of acquisition of cancer-causing HPV infections and implied dwell times for distinct phases of cervical carcinogenesis.

methodsUsing four CISNET-cervical models with varying underlying structures but fit to common US epidemiological data, we estimated the age of acquisition of causal HPV infections and dwell times associated with three phases of cancer development: HPV, high-grade precancer, and cancer sojourn time. We stratified these estimates by HPV genotype under both natural history and CC screening scenarios, because screening prevents cancer development that affects the mix of detected cancers.

resultsThe median time from HPV acquisition to cancer detection ranged from 17.5 to 26.0 years across the four models. Three models projected that 50% of unscreened women acquired their causal HPV infection between ages 19 and 23 years, whereas one model projected these infections occurred later (age 34 years). In the context of imperfect compliance with US screening guidelines, the median age of causal infection was 4.4-15.9 years later compared with model projections in the absence of screening.

conclusionsThese validated CISNET-CC models, which reflect some uncertainty in the development of CC, elucidate important drivers of HPV vaccination and CC screening policies and emphasize the value of comparative modeling when evaluating public health policies.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAdultAgedAge of OnsetCell Transformation, ViralDisease ProgressionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalNeoplasm GradingPapillomaviridaePapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID31821501
PMCPMC7492768
OpenAlexW2995348842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.