Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Dec 1;125(11):2489-96.
doi: 10.1002/ijc.24774.

How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?

Affiliations
Review

How to evaluate emerging technologies in cervical cancer screening?

Marc Arbyn et al. Int J Cancer. .

Abstract

Excellent recommendations exist for studying therapeutic and diagnostic questions. We observe that good guidelines on assessment of evidence for screening questions are currently lacking. Guidelines for diagnostic research (STARD), involving systematic application of the reference test (gold standard) to all subjects of large study populations, are not pertinent in situations of screening for disease that is currently not yet present. A five-step framework is proposed for assessing the potential use of a biomarker as a screening tool for cervical cancer: i) correlation studies establishing a trend between the rate of biomarker expression and severity of neoplasia; ii) diagnostic studies in a clinical setting where all women are submitted to verification by the reference standard; iii) biobank-based studies with assessment in archived cytology samples of the biomarker in cervical cancer cases and controls; iv) prospective cohort studies with baseline assessment of the biomarker and monitoring of disease; v) randomised intervention trials aiming to observe reduced incidence of cancer (or its surrogate, severe dysplasia) in the experimental arm at subsequent screening rounds. The 5-phases framework should guide researchers and test developers in planning assessment of new biomarkers and protect clinicians and stakeholders against premature claims for insufficiently evaluated products.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman ME, Wilbur D, Wright TC, Young N. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114–9. - PubMed
    1. Herbert A, Bergeron C, Wiener H, Schenck U, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology. Cytopathology. 2007;18:213–9. - PubMed
    1. Wright TC, Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2007;11:201–22. - PubMed
    1. Morrison AS. Screening in Chronic Disease. 2. Oxford University Press, Inc; 1992. pp. 1–254.
    1. Arbyn M, Kyrgiou M, Simoens C, Raifu AO, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Peri-natal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;337:a1284, 1–11. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types