Trial reportPLoS medicine2022
Risk of cervical precancer among HPV-negative women in the Netherlands and its association with previous HPV and cytology results: A follow-up analysis of a randomized screening study.
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening for cervical cancer in cohorts vaccinated against human papillomavirus with moderate vaccination coverage.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Real-World Performance of HPV DNA-Based Screening in Health Resource-Limited Areas of China: A Multicenter Implementation Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Impact of repeatedly screening negative on cervical cancer risk.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Impact of differentiating between persistent and new infections on colposcopy referral in HPV-positive triage-negative women: results from the NTCC2 study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Article
- Risk of high-grade cervical lesions in the second round of primary human papillomavirus testing in CervicalScreen Norway: A population-based cohort study.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Human Papillomavirus and Other Relevant Issues in Cervical Cancer Pathogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Clinically validated HPV assays offer comparable long-term safety in primary cervical cancer screening: A 9-year follow-up of a population-based screening cohort.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Influence of cervical treatment methods on subsequent vaginal lesions: A study of HPV-related neoplasia.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
- Feasibility of Intravaginal Artesunate as an Adjuvant HPV & Cervical Precancer Treatment Among Women Living With HIV in Kenya: Study Protocol for a Phase II Clinical Trial.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening programs still use one-size-fits-all protocols but efficiency and efficacy of programs may be improved by stratifying women based on previous screening results. METHODS AND
findingsWe studied the association between cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+) and previous screening results in the Population-Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM) trial, performed in the Netherlands in the setting of regular screening, where women aged from 29 to 61 years old were invited to cytology and HPV co-testing at enrolment in year 1999/2002 and at the next round in 2003/2007. We selected 18,448 women (9,293 from the intervention group and 9,155 from the control group) who tested HPV-negative in 2003/2007 and did not have cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or hysterectomy after enrolment. Follow-up was collected until 14 years after the 2003/2007 screen, covering 4 rounds of screening. Risk of CIN3+ and CIN2+ among women with an HPV-negative test, irrespective of previous round results and stratified according to previous round HPV and cytology results, were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. During 14 years of follow-up, 62 CIN3+ cases (24 in the intervention group and 38 in the control group) were detected. HPV-negative women had a 14-year CIN3+ risk of 0.48% (95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.62) and CIN2+ risk of 1.17% (0.99 to 1.38). The CIN3+ risk among HPV-negative women was increased in women with a previous positive HPV test (2.36%, 1.20 to 4.63; p < 0.001) or co-test (1.68%, 0.87 to 3.20; p < 0.001) and, equivalently, decreased in women with a previous negative HPV test (0.43%, 0.33 to 0.57) or a negative co-test (0.43%, 0.33 to 0.57). The CIN3+ risk was not influenced by the previous cytology result. The CIN3+ risk among HPV-negative women was increased after both a previous HPV16-positive test (3.90%, 1.47 to 10.12; p < 0.001) and a previous HPV16-negative/HPVother-positive test (1.91%, 0.76 to 4.74; p = 0.002). For endpoint CIN2+ (147 cases), findings were similar except that the CIN2+ risk was increased after previous abnormal cytology (4.06%, 2.30 to 7.12; p < 0.001). The presented risk estimates were calculated by tracking histological results through the Dutch nationwide pathology archive (PALGA) and were not adjusted for non-compliance with the colposcopy referral advice.
conclusionsHPV-negative women had an increased long-term risk of CIN3+ when the HPV test in the previous screening round was positive. This supports the implementation of risk-based intervals that depend on HPV results in the current and previous screening round.
trial registrationPOBASCAM trial, trial registration number ISRCTN20781131.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.