Performance of alternative strategies for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies - PubMed
- ️Thu Jan 01 2015
Review
Performance of alternative strategies for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
Joël Fokom-Domgue et al. BMJ. 2015.
Abstract
Objective: To assess and compare the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), visual inspection with Lugol's iodine (VILI), and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as alternative standalone methods for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Data sources: Systematic searches of multiple databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between January 1994 and June 2014.
Review methods: Inclusion criteria for studies were: alternative methods to cytology used as a standalone test for primary screening; study population not at particular risk of cervical cancer (excluding studies focusing on HIV positive women or women with gynaecological symptoms); women screened by nurses; reference test (colposcopy and directed biopsies) performed at least in women with positive screening results. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data for inclusion, and evaluated study quality using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. Primary outcomes were absolute accuracy measures (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).
Results: 15 studies of moderate quality were included (n=61,381 for VIA, n=46,435 for VILI, n=11,322 for HPV testing). Prevalence of CIN2+ did not vary by screening test and ranged from 2.3% (95% confidence interval 1.5% to 3.3%) in VILI studies to 4.9% (2.7% to 7.8%) in HPV testing studies. Positivity rates of VILI, VIA, and HPV testing were 16.5% (9.8% to 24.7%), 16.8% (11.0% to 23.6%), and 25.8% (17.4% to 35.3%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity was higher for VILI (95.1%; 90.1% to 97.7%) than VIA (82.4%; 76.3% to 87.3%) in studies where the reference test was performed in all women (P<0.001). Pooled specificity of VILI and VIA were similar (87.2% (78.1% to 92.8%) v 87.4% (77.1% to 93.4%); P=0.85). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were similar for HPV testing versus VIA (both P ≥ 0.23) and versus VILI (both P ≥ 0.16). Accuracy of VIA and VILI increased with sample size and time period.
Conclusions: For primary screening of cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, VILI is a simple and affordable alternative to cytology that demonstrates higher sensitivity than VIA. Implementation studies are needed to assess the effect of these screening strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cervical cancer in the region.
© Fokom-Domgue et al 2015.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the International Solidarity of Geneva for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Figures
Fig 1 Study flowchart of papers in selection process. *Gold standard performed in all women in the study population. †Gold standard performed in all women with a positive screening result and only a portion of women with a negative screening result. HC2=second generation hybrid capture assay; PICOS=population, intervention (screening tests), comparison (gold standard), outcomes (absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity, prevalence of CIN2+, and positivity rate of tests), study design; PCR=polymerase chain reaction; RCT=randomised controlled trial
Fig 2 Absolute sensitivity and specificity of VIA, VILI, and HPV testing for CIN2+ detection in sub-Saharan Africa. Diamond=95% confidence interval of the pooled measure computed with a bivariate random effects model. This figure includes only studies where the gold standard (colposcopy and colposcopy directed biopsies) was performed in all women of the study population (that is, GSA group). Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with Cochran’s Q test for each screening test (all P<0.05). DRC=Democratic Republic of Congo
Fig 3 Absolute accuracy of VIA, VILI and HPV testing for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. HSROC=hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic regression curves. HSROC curves depict the fitted sensitivity as a function of specificity for VIA, VILI, HPV testing, and all three tests combined to detect CIN2+. These curves include only studies where gold standard (colposcopy and colposcopy directed biopsies) was applied to all women (that is, GSA group). Small blue squares, red circles, and green triangles and grey line circles=individual studies and 95% confidence ellipses; large blue squares, red circles, and green triangles and circles=pooled sensitivity and specificity and 95% confidence ellipses
Fig 4 Positive and negative predictive values of VIA, VILI, and HPV testing in detecting CIN2+ in sub-Saharan Africa. Curves=variation of positive and negative predictive values as a function of the prevalence of disease (CIN2+) using the Bayes’theorem, by screening test and by geographical region (western Africa, middle Africa, southern Africa, and eastern Africa). We considered the absolute sensitivity and specificity of each test to be constant and equal to the pooled values calculated with a random effects model. Prevalence of CIN2+ is shown on the x axis, and the resulting positive or negative predictive values are noted on the y axis. Heavy dotted curves=fitted predictive values; light dotted curves=95% confidence bands; NPV=negative predictive value; PPV=positive predictive value
Similar articles
-
Screening of cervical neoplasia in HIV-infected women in India.
Joshi S, Sankaranarayanan R, Muwonge R, Kulkarni V, Somanathan T, Divate U. Joshi S, et al. AIDS. 2013 Feb 20;27(4):607-15. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835b1041. AIDS. 2013. PMID: 23079814
-
Huchko MJ, Sneden J, Zakaras JM, Smith-McCune K, Sawaya G, Maloba M, Bukusi EA, Cohen CR. Huchko MJ, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 7;10(4):e0118568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118568. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 25849627 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Shi JF, Canfell K, Lew JB, Zhao FH, Legood R, Ning Y, Simonella L, Ma L, Kang YJ, Zhang YZ, Smith MA, Chen JF, Feng XX, Qiao YL. Shi JF, et al. BMC Cancer. 2011 Jun 13;11:239. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-239. BMC Cancer. 2011. PMID: 21668946 Free PMC article.
-
Ronco G, Confortini M, Maccallini V, Naldoni C, Segnan N, Sideri M, Zappa M, Zorzi M, Calvia M, Giorgi Rossi P. Ronco G, et al. Epidemiol Prev. 2012 Sep-Oct;36(5 Suppl 2):e1-e33. Epidemiol Prev. 2012. PMID: 23139163 Review. Italian.
-
Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population.
Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N, Bryant A, Martin-Hirsch PP, Mustafa RA, Schünemann H, Paraskevaidis E, Arbyn M. Koliopoulos G, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 10;8(8):CD008587. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28796882 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Olakunde BO, Itanyi IU, Olawepo JO, Liu L, Bembir C, Idemili-Aronu N, Lasebikan NN, Onyeka TC, Dim CC, Chigbu CO, Ezeanolue EE, Aarons GA. Olakunde BO, et al. Implement Sci. 2024 Mar 11;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13012-024-01349-9. Implement Sci. 2024. PMID: 38468266 Free PMC article.
-
Namale G, Mayanja Y, Kamacooko O, Bagiire D, Ssali A, Seeley J, Newton R, Kamali A. Namale G, et al. Infect Agent Cancer. 2021 May 11;16(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s13027-021-00373-4. Infect Agent Cancer. 2021. PMID: 33975633 Free PMC article.
-
Uzoaru F, Nwaozuru U, Ong JJ, Obi F, Obiezu-Umeh C, Tucker JD, Shato T, Mason SL, Carter V, Manu S, BeLue R, Ezechi O, Iwelunmor J. Uzoaru F, et al. Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Jul 5;2(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00177-y. Implement Sci Commun. 2021. PMID: 34225820 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Mwenda V, Bor JP, Nyangasi M, Njeru J, Olwande S, Njiri P, Arbyn M, Weyers S, Tummers P, Temmerman M. Mwenda V, et al. PLoS One. 2023 May 25;18(5):e0286202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286202. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 37228154 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Castellsague X, de Sanjose S, Aguado K, et al. HPV and cervical cancer in the 2007 report. Vaccine 2007;25 suppl 3:C1-230. - PubMed
-
- Arbyn M, Castellsague X, de Sanjose S, et al. Worldwide burden of cervical cancer in 2008. Ann Oncol 2011;22:2675-86. - PubMed
-
- Blumenthal P, Gaffikin L, Deganus S, Lewis R, Emerson M, Adadevoh S. Cervical cancer prevention:safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach in Accra, Ghana. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:407 e1-8; discussion 407 e8-9. - PubMed
-
- Katz I, Wright A. Preventing cervical cancer in the developing world. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1110. - PubMed
-
- Goldie S, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright T. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 2001;285:3107-15. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical