MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Talía Malagón, Shalini Kulasingam, Marie‐Hélène Mayrand, Gina Ogilvie, Leah Smith, Céline Bouchard, Walter H. Gotlieb, Eduardo L. Franco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalCanadian Cancer SocietyCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerDemographyIncidence (geometry)PopulationCancerCervical screeningGynecologyCancer registryObstetricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet OncologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207