2004
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

POBASCAM, a population‐based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high‐risk HPV testing in cervical screening: Design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women

Abstract: Cytological cervical screening is rather inefficient because of relatively high proportions of false negative and false positive smears. To evaluate the efficiency of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing, by GP5؉/6؉ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA), in conjunction with cytology (Intervention Group) to that of the classical cytology (Control Group), we initiated the Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam (POBASCAM). POBASCAM is a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of hrHPV… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
255
4
10

Year Published

2005
2005
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 242 publications
(272 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
255
4
10
Order By: Relevance
“…In the Guanacaste trial, sensitivity and specificity of the HC 2 r testing were compared to Pap testing using ASC-US cut point for colposcopy (Schiffman et al, 2000); however, the women tested for hrHPVs had multiple tests (a pelvic examination, conventional cytological test and LBC test, cervigrams) performed, which makes evaluating the outcome effectiveness of these tests impossible (The working group of IARC, 2005). Like in our study, in the ALTS and POBASCAM trial women were randomised to intervention and control groups, but in these trials hrHPV test (by HC 2 r in ALTS and by GP5 þ /6 þ PCR immunoassay in POBASCAM) was used as a confirmatory test for cytological test, which is just the opposite to our study (Schiffman and Solomon, 2003;Bulkmans et al, 2004). The Indian trial, being most comparable to our study, resulted in specificity of HC 2 r test in detecting CIN2 þ lesions ranging from 91.7 to 94.6%, and PPV from 9.1 to 16.7% -for the same cutoff in the current study, specificity estimate was 91.7% and PPV 4.0% (Sankaranarayanan et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…In the Guanacaste trial, sensitivity and specificity of the HC 2 r testing were compared to Pap testing using ASC-US cut point for colposcopy (Schiffman et al, 2000); however, the women tested for hrHPVs had multiple tests (a pelvic examination, conventional cytological test and LBC test, cervigrams) performed, which makes evaluating the outcome effectiveness of these tests impossible (The working group of IARC, 2005). Like in our study, in the ALTS and POBASCAM trial women were randomised to intervention and control groups, but in these trials hrHPV test (by HC 2 r in ALTS and by GP5 þ /6 þ PCR immunoassay in POBASCAM) was used as a confirmatory test for cytological test, which is just the opposite to our study (Schiffman and Solomon, 2003;Bulkmans et al, 2004). The Indian trial, being most comparable to our study, resulted in specificity of HC 2 r test in detecting CIN2 þ lesions ranging from 91.7 to 94.6%, and PPV from 9.1 to 16.7% -for the same cutoff in the current study, specificity estimate was 91.7% and PPV 4.0% (Sankaranarayanan et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…The study design of the POBASCAM trial (Trial registration ID: NTR218; ISRCTN20781131), a population‐based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high‐risk HPV testing in cervical screening, has been published before 3, 29, 30. In brief, women aged 29–61 were included from January 1999 to September 2002.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From January 1999 to September 2002, 44 102 women between 30 and 60 years of age invited for the regular Dutch cervical screening programme participated in the Population-Based Screening Amsterdam (POBASCAM) trial (Bulkmans et al, 2004). In this prospective randomised controlled trial, the efficacy of hrHPV testing in conjunction with cytology (intervention group) is compared with that of classical cytology alone (control group, hrHPV results blinded) in the setting of population-based cervical screening.…”
Section: Study Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%