Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35640980›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2022

Performance of Cervical Screening a Decade Following HPV Vaccination: The Costa Rica Vaccine Trial.

Shang-Ying Hu, Aimée R Kreimer, Carolina Porras, Diego Guillén, Mario Alfaro, Teresa M Darragh, Mark H Stoler, Luis F Villegas, Rebecca Ocampo, Ana Cecilia Rodriguez and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. How to evaluate and select cervical screening and triage tests in vaccinated populations.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

21 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Shang-Ying HuDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4778-1612
Aimée R KreimerDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Carolina PorrasAgencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB), Fundación INCIENSA, San José, Costa Rica.
Diego GuillénAgencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB), Fundación INCIENSA, San José, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0002-5032-093X
Mario AlfaroAgencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB), Fundación INCIENSA, San José, Costa Rica.
Teresa M DarraghSchool of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mark H StolerDepartment of Pathology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Luis F VillegasAgencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB), Fundación INCIENSA, San José, Costa Rica.
Rebecca OcampoAgencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB), Fundación INCIENSA, San José, Costa Rica.
Ana Cecilia RodriguezIndependent Consultant, San José, Costa Rica.
Mark SchiffmanDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sabrina H TsangDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Douglas R LowyDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
John T SchillerLaboratory of Cellular Oncology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
John SchusslerInformation Management Services, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Wim QuintViroclinics-DDL, Rijswijk, Netherlands.
Mitchell H GailDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Joshua N SampsonDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2875-3365
Allan HildesheimDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Rolando HerreroAgencia Costarricense de Investigaciones Biomédicas (ACIB), Fundación INCIENSA, San José, Costa Rica.
Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial (CVT) Group
National Institutes of Health · USInstituto Costarricense de Investigación y Enseñanza en Nutrición y Salud · CRInformation Management Services · USNational Cancer Institute · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Virginia · USViroclinics Biosciences (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

Understanding Papillomavirus Virion Proteins and VaccinesZIABC009052 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI SCHILLER, JOHN T. · 2009 to 2025
$38.4M
Papillomavirus Virion Proteins and VaccinesZIABC010579 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI LOWY, DOUGLAS R. · 2009 to 2025
$15.4M
NCI NIH HHS N01 CP011005World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigated the impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on the performance of cytology-based and HPV-based screening for detection of cervical precancer among women vaccinated as young adults and reaching screening age.

methodsA total of 4632 women aged 25-36 years from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial were included (2418 HPV-vaccinated as young adults and 2214 unvaccinated). We assessed the performance of cytology- and HPV-based cervical screening modalities in vaccinated and unvaccinated women to detect high-grade cervical precancers diagnosed over 4 years and the absolute risk of cumulative cervical precancers by screening results at entry.

resultsWe detected 95 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (52 in unvaccinated and 43 in vaccinated women). HPV16/18/31/33/45 was predominant (69%) among unvaccinated participants, and HPV35/52/58/39/51/56/59/66/68 predominated (65%) among vaccinated participants. Sensitivity and specificity of cervical screening approaches were comparable between women vaccinated as young adults and unvaccinated women. Colposcopy referral rates were lower in the vaccinated group for HPV-based screening modalities, but the positive predictive value was comparable between the 2 groups.

conclusionsAmong women approaching screening ages, vaccinated as young adults, and with a history of intensive screening, the expected reduction in the positive predictive value of HPV testing, associated with dropping prevalence of HPV-associated lesions, was not observed. This is likely due to the presence of high-grade lesions associated with nonvaccine HPV types, which may be less likely to progress to cancer.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsCosta RicaEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansPapillomaviridaeVaccinationYoung AdultPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35640980
PMCPMC9468298
OpenAlexW4282921317

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.