Biomedical subjects

N W J Bulkmans

Publications and source records attributed to N W J Bulkmans.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Implementation of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening without a concomitant decrease in participation rate.

Adding high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to screening increases the efficacy of cervical screening programmes. However, hrHPV testing may result in a lower participation rate because of the perceived association with sexually transmitted infections. We describe how testing for hrHPV was added to cervical screening in the POpulation-BAsed SCreening study AMsterdam (POBASCAM) trial. Participation rates of the screening programme before and after hrHPV implementation were evaluated in the region where the POBASCAM trial was carried out. The participation rate was 58.7% before and 61.4% after the addition of hrHPV testing to screening (p<0.001). An inventory of frequently asked questions is presented. Thus, hrHPV testing can be added to cervical screening by cytology without a decrease in participation rate.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Preferential risk of HPV16 for squamous cell carcinoma and of HPV18 for adenocarcinoma of the cervix compared to women with normal cytology in The Netherlands.

We present the type-distribution of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types in women with normal cytology (n=1467), adenocarcinoma in situ (ACIS) (n=61), adenocarcinoma (n=70), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (n=83). Cervical adenocarcinoma and ACIS were significantly more frequently associated with HPV18 (OR(MH) 15.0; 95% CI 8.6-26.1 and 21.8; 95% CI 11.9-39.8, respectively) than normal cytology. Human papillomavirus16 was only associated with adenocarcinoma and ACIS after exclusion of HPV18-positive cases (OR(MH) 6.6; 95% CI 2.8-16.0 and 9.4; 95% CI 2.8-31.2, respectively). For SCC, HPV16 prevalence was elevated (OR(MH) 7.0; 95% CI 3.9-12.4) compared to cases with normal cytology, and HPV18 prevalence was only increased after exclusion of HPV16-positive cases (OR(MH) 4.3; 95% CI 1.6-11.6). These results suggest that HPV18 is mainly a risk factor for the development of adenocarcinoma whereas HPV16 is associated with both SCC and adenocarcinoma.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed2006

Cross-sectional comparison of an automated hybrid capture 2 assay and the consensus GP5+/6+ PCR method in a population-based cervical screening program.

In this cross-sectional study, clinical performances of the hybrid capture 2 assay using an automated instrument (i.e., rapid capture system) (hc2-RCS) and the high-risk human papillomavirus GP5+/6+ PCR-enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test were compared using cervical scrape specimens from 8,132 women that participated in a population-based screening trial. The hc2-RCS test scored significantly more samples positive (6.8%) than the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA (4.8%) (P < 0.0005). This could be attributed largely to a higher positivity rate by the hc2-RCS test for women with cytologically normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis. A receiver operator characteristics analysis of the semiquantitative hc2-RCS results in relation to different cytology categories revealed that these differences are owing to differences in assay thresholds. For women classified as having moderate dyskaryosis or worse who also had underlying histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cervical cancer (> or =CIN3), the hc2-RCS scored 97% (31/32) of samples positive, versus 91% (29/32) by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA. However, this difference was not significant (P = 0.25). After increasing the hc2-RCS cutoff from 1.0 to 2.0 relative light units/cutoff value of the HPV16 calibrator (RLU/CO), no additional CIN3 lesions were missed by hc2-RCS, but the number of test-positive women with normal, borderline, or mild dyskaryosis was significantly decreased (P < 0.0005). However, at this RLU/CO, the difference in test positivity between hc2-RCS and the GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA was still significant (P = 0.02). The use of an RLU/CO value of 3.0 revealed no significant difference between hc2-RCS and GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA results, and equal numbers of smears classified as > or =CIN3 (i.e., 29/32) were detected by both methods. In summary, both assays perform very well for the detection of >or =CIN3 in a population-based cervical screening setting. However, adjustment of the hc2-RCS threshold to an RLU/CO value of 2.0 or 3.0 seems to produce an improved balance between the clinical sensitivity and specificity for > or =CIN3 in population-based cervical screening.

Automation↗

PubMed2005

Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening.

We prospectively evaluated the 5-year predictive values of adding high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to cytology for the detection of > or = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)3 lesions in a population-based cohort of 2810 women. At baseline, nine (0.3%) women had prevalent lesions > or = CIN3, all being hrHPV positive. After 5 years of follow-up, four (6.5%) of the 62 hrHPV-positive women with normal cytology developed lesions > or = CIN3, vs only one (0.05%) of the 2175 hrHPV-negative women with normal cytology. High-risk human papillomavirus testing or combined screening revealed a much higher sensitivity, at the cost of a small decrease in specificity, and a higher negative predictive value for the detection of lesions > or = CIN3 till the next screening round (5 years) than cytology alone.

Female↗