Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37772799›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2024

A rapid HPV typing assay to support global cervical cancer screening and risk-based management: A cross-sectional study.

Federica Inturrisi, Silvia de Sanjosé, Kanan T Desai, Casey Dagnall, Didem Egemen, Brian Befano, Ana Cecilia Rodriguez, Jose A Jeronimo, Rosemary E Zuna, Amanda Hoffman and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Future of Cervical Cancer Screening.International journal of women's health · 2024
    Review
  19. Review
  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.

Federica InturrisiDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3661-0842
Silvia de SanjoséDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Kanan T DesaiDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Casey DagnallCancer Genomics Research Laboratory, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick, Maryland, USA.
Didem EgemenDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Brian BefanoInformation Management Services Inc., Calverton, Maryland, USA.
Ana Cecilia RodriguezDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Jose A JeronimoDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Rosemary E ZunaDepartment of Pathology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Amanda HoffmanCancer Genomics Research Laboratory, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research Inc., Frederick, Maryland, USA.
Sepideh Farhat NozzariDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Joan L WalkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Rebecca B PerkinsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston Medical Center/Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Maryland, USA.
Nicolas WentzensenDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1251-0836
Joel M PalefskyDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Mark SchiffmanDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical and anal cancersZIACP010124 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI WENTZENSEN, NICOLAS · 2009 to 2025
$17.3M
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer InstituteIntramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening. Extended genotyping can identify the highest-risk HPV-positive women. An inexpensive, rapid, mobile isothermal amplification assay (ScreenFire HPV RS test) was recently redesigned to yield four channels ordered by cancer risk (ie, hierarchical approach): HPV16, HPV18/45, HPV31/33/35/52/58 and HPV39/51/56/59/68. Stored specimens from 2076 women (mean age 30.9) enrolled in a colposcopy clinic, with high HPV prevalence, were tested with ScreenFire. We calculated hierarchical channel positivity and non-hierarchical channel and type positivity, according to histologic diagnosis (256 cancer, 350 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]3, 409 CIN2, 1020 < CIN2) and known virologic reference results (Linear Array and TypeSeq). Additionally, we analyzed ScreenFire time-to-positive up to 60 min by channel and histology. Overall clinical sensitivity for CIN3+ was 94.7% (95% confidence interval 92.6-96.4), similar to Linear Array (92.3, 89.7-94.3) and TypeSeq (96.0, 93.9-97.6). Sensitivity was high for all types and channels. The hierarchical approach was well in line with HPV typing and histologic diagnosis, prioritizing higher risk women having HPV16 and precancer. For HPV16, time-to-positive was shorter in women with precancer. ScreenFire showed excellent agreement with research reference typing tests and detection of CIN2+. Risk-based type results could help guide clinical management of HPV-positive women. Time-to-positive combined with genotyping might be useful. ScreenFire is rapid, mobile, relatively inexpensive and designed for implementation of HPV-based screening and management, including in lower-resource settings. Further validation in screening by self-sampling and practical effectiveness merit evaluation.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenotypeHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansPapillomaviridaecervical cancer screeningHPV genotypingHPV testingLMICrisk-stratification

Identifiers

PMID37772799
PMCPMC12173671

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.