No abstract

The new German S3 guideline ‘Prevention of Cervical Cancer' published in 2016 is based on the latest available evidence about cervical cancer screening and treatment of cervical precancer. Large randomized controlled trials indicate that human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening may provide better protection against cervical cancer than cytology alone through improved detection of premalignant disease in the first screening round prior to progression. Therefore, women aged 30 years and older should preferably be screened with HPV testing every 3-5 years (cytology alone every 2 years is an acceptable alternative). Co-testing is not recommended. Screening should start at 25 years using cytology alone every 2 years. The preferred triage test after a positive HPV screening test is cytology. Women positive for HPV 16 and HPV 18 should receive immediate colposcopy. Another alternative triage method is p16/Ki-67 dual stain cytology. The mean yearly participation rate in Germany is between 45 and 50%. Offering devices for HPV self-sampling has the potential to increase participation rates in those women who are at higher risk of developing cervical cancer. Regarding primary prevention, the 9-valent vaccine may provide protection against up to 85% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3 and 90% of cervical cancer, and is available in Europe as a 2-dose schedule from May 2016.

VAIN has a high relapse rate and a high progression rate to invasive cancer especially if HR-HPV positive. Therefore, adequate follow-up examinations are mandatory.

HAL PDT seems to be a non-invasive, repeatable procedure for CIN and cervical HPV infection with minimal side effects which can be easily performed on outpatient basis.

BackgroundLesions of the breast that are classified BI-RADS®-US 3 by ultrasound are probably benign and observation is recommended, although malignancy may occasionally occur.In our study, we focus exclusively on BI-RADS®-US 3 lesions and hypothesize that sonoelastography as an adjunct to conventional ultrasound can identify a high-risk-group and a low-risk-group within these patients.MethodsA group of 177 breast lesions that were classified BI-RADS®-US 3 were additionally examined with real-time sonoelastography. Elastograms were evaluated according to the Tsukuba Elasticity Score. Pretest and posttest probability of disease (POD), sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) and likelihood-ratios (LR) were calculated. Furthermore, we analyzed the false-negative and false-positive cases and performed a model calculation to determine how elastography could affect the proceedings in population screening.ResultsIn our collection of BI-RADS®-US 3 cases there were 169 benign and eight malignant lesions. The pretest POD was 4.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1–9.0). In patients with a suspicious elastogram (high-risk group), the posttest POD was significantly higher (13.2%, p = 0.041) and the positive LR was 3.2 (95% CI: 1.7–5.9). With a benign elastogram (low-risk group), the posttest POD decreased to 2.2%. SE, SP, PPV and NPV for sonoelastography in BI-RADS®-US 3 lesions were 62.5% (95% CI: 25.9–89.8), 80.5% (95% CI: 73.5–86.0), 13.2% (95% CI: 5.0–28.9) and 97.8% (95% CI: 93.3–99.4), respectively.ConclusionsSonoelastography yields additional diagnostic information in the evaluation of BI-RADS®-US 3 lesions of the breast. The examiner can identify a low-risk group that can be vigilantly observed and a high-risk group that should receive immediate biopsy due to an elevated breast cancer risk.