MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2899334087 · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30536-9

Age at last screening and remaining lifetime risk of cervical cancer in older, unvaccinated women: a modelling study

2018· article· en· W2899334087 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Talía Malagón, Shalini Kulasingam, Marie‐Hélène Mayrand, Gina Ogilvie, Leah Smith, Céline Bouchard, Walter H. Gotlieb, Eduardo L. Franco

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Établissements canadiensJewish General HospitalCanadian Cancer SocietyCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Mots-clésMedicineCervical cancerDemographyIncidence (geometry)PopulationCancerCervical screeningGynecologyCancer registryObstetricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of empirical evidence to inform the age at which to stop cervical cancer screening. The recommended age to stop screening generally varies between age 50-70 years worldwide. However, cervical cancer incidence and mortality remain high in older women. We used a Markov model of cervical cancer screening to estimate the remaining lifetime risk of cervical cancer at different ages and with different exit screening tests, with the aim of informing recommendations of the age at which to stop cervical cancer screening in developed countries. METHODS: For this modelling study, we developed a state transition (Markov) model of cervical cancer natural history and screening. We developed, calibrated, and validated our model using Canadian provincial registries and survey data. To simulate an age-structured population in the model, a new cohort of 236 564 women (one fifth of the population of Canadian women aged 20-24 years in 2012) entered the model every year and were successively modelled in parallel. Successive cohorts entered the model at age 10 years, creating an age-structured population of women aged 10-100 years. Women who had a total hysterectomy were excluded from the analyses. We calibrated our model to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cancer incidence with data from Statistics Canada, which compiles the data from 13 individual provincial registries. We chose a three-stage progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia model to include differences in management and treatment decisions depending on lesion severity. We modelled infections with four high-risk HPV groups: HPV16 and HPV18; HPV31, HPV33, HPV45, HPV52, and HPV58; HPV35, HPV39, HPV51, HPV56, HPV59, HPV66, and HPV68; and a generic group of other potentially oncogenic HPVs. We estimated 5-year, 10-year, and remaining lifetime risk of cervical cancer for older, unvaccinated women who stopped screening at different ages and underwent different screening tests. FINDINGS: Cervical cancer incidence excluding women with hysterectomies underestimated the incidence of cervical cancer in women with a cervix by up to 71% in women aged 80-84 years. Our model predicted that women without HPV vaccination who have been never screened have a 1 in 45 (95% percentile interval 1 in 32 to 1 in 64) lifetime risk of cervical cancer. Perfect adherence (100% of women screened) to cytology screening every 3 years between the ages of 25 years and 69 years could reduce the lifetime risk of cervical cancer to 1 in 532 women (95% percentile interval 1 in 375 to 1 in 820) without HPV vaccination. Increasing the age at which women stopped cytology screening from 55 years to 75 years led to incremental decreases in cancer risk later in life. A 70-year old woman whose screening history was unknown had an average remaining lifetime risk of 1 in 588 (<1%; 95% percentile interval 1 in 451 to 1 in 873) if she stopped screening. Her remaining lifetime risk at age 70 years was reduced to 1 in 1206 (2·0 times reduction; 95% percentile interval 1 in 942 to 1 in 1748) if she had a negative cytology test, 1 in 6525 (12·9 times reduction; 95% percentile interval 1 in 3167 to 1 in 18 664) if she had a negative HPV test, and 1 in 9550 (18·1 times reduction; 95% percentile interval 1 in 4928 to 1 in 23 228) if she had a negative co-test for cytology and HPV. INTERPRETATION: Cervical cancer risk reductions might be achieved by screening with cytology up to age 75 years, although with diminishing returns. A negative exit oncogenic HPV test or negative HPV test plus cytology correlates with a low remaining lifetime cervical cancer risk for unvaccinated women with a cervix after the age of 55 years. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,079
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,395
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations60
Publié2018
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet OncologyMême sujetCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchTravaux en français237 207