English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  New screening techniques may affect the optimal approaches for the prevention of cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of alternative screening strategies to provide evidence for cervical cancer screening guidelines in China.    Methods  In total, 32,306 women were enrolled. The current screening with Cervista ®  high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping and cytology cotesting (Cervista ®  cotesting) was compared with PCR-reverse dot blot HR-HPV genotyping and cytology cotesting (PCR-RDB cotesting). All eligible participants were divided into Arm 1, in which both HR-HPV assays were performed, and Arms 2 and 3, in which the PCR-RDB HPV or Cervista ®  HR-HPV assay, respectively, was performed. Outcome indicators included the cases, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), colposcopy referral rate and cost of identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+).    Results  Among the eligible participants, 18.4% were PCR-RDB HR-HPV-positive, while 16.9% were Cervista ®  HR-HPV-positive, which reflects good agreement (k = 0.73). PCR-RDB cotesting identified more CIN3+ cases than Cervista ®  cotesting in the first round of screening in Arm 1 (37 vs 32) and Arms 2/3 (252 vs 165). The sensitivity and NPV of PCR-RDB cotesting for identifying CIN3+ in Arm 1 (sensitivity: 94.9% vs 86.5%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.7%) and Arms 2/3 (sensitivity: 95.1% vs 80.9%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.6%) were higher than those of Cervista ®  cotesting, but the cost was similar.    Conclusions  The PCR-RDB HR-HPV genotyping and Cervista ®  HR-HPV assay results were consistent. PCR-RDB cotesting possesses optimal cost-effectiveness for cervical cancer screening in China, which has the highest number of cases globally but low screening coverage.

cancer cell international

Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study