Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32588426›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of cancer2020

Defining benchmarks for tolerable risk thresholds in cancer screening: Impact of HPV vaccination on the future of cervical cancer screening.

Joseph E Tota, Sandra D Isidean, Eduardo L Franco

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. State Variation in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anus Incidence and Mortality, and Association With HIV/AIDS and Smoking in the United States.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

3 authors.

Joseph E TotaDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1941-7685
Sandra D IsideanDepartment of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Eduardo L FrancoDepartment of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-8084

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The performance of cervical cancer screening will decline as a function of lower disease prevalence-a consequence of successful human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Replacement of cytology with molecular HPV testing as the primary screening test and adoption of risk-based screening, with less intense screening of vaccinated individuals and initiated at older ages is expected to improve efficiency. However, policy officials may decide to further reduce or eliminate screening as the ratio of benefits to harms continues to decline. To evaluate the level of risk currently tolerated for different cancers in the United States (ie, for which clinical guidelines do not recommend secondary prevention though effective screening methods exist), we used US cancer registry data to compare incidence (2008-2012) and survival (1988-2011) associated with different cancers for which organized screening is recommended and not recommended. The most common cancer at ages 70 to 74 years (ie, age group with highest cancer incidence and reasonable life expectancy to consider screening in the US) satisfying Wilson and Jungner's classic screening criteria was vulvar cancer (incidence = 9/100 000 females). In comparison, the incidence of cervical cancer among females 65 years of age (the upper recommended age limit for screening) was 13 cases per 100 000 females (low as a reflection of effective screening), whereas 10-year survival was 66% (similar to vulvar cancer at 67%). Our approach of defining tolerable risk in cancer screening could help guide future decisions to modify cervical screening programs.

Indexed as

AgedBenchmarkingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidencePapillomavirus VaccinesRegistriesSurvival AnalysisUnited StatesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus Vaccinescervical cancerHPV vaccinationscreeningtolerable risk

Identifiers

PMID32588426
PMCPMC7689748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.