4.3 Article

A risk prediction model to allow personalized screening for cervical cancer

Journal

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 297-304

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-018-1013-4

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Screening; Guidelines

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cervical cancer screening guidelines are in evolution. Current guidelines do not differentiate recommendations based on individual patient risk. To derive and validate a tool for predicting individualized probability of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) at a single time point, based on demographic factors and medical history. The study design consisted of an observational cohort with hierarchical generalized linear regression modeling. The study was conducted in a setting of 33 primary care practices from 2004 to 2010. The participants of the study were women aged ae 30 years. CIN2+ was the main outcome on biopsy, and the following predictors were included: age, race, marital status, insurance type, smoking history, median income based on zip code, prior human papilloma virus (HPV) results. The final dataset included 99,319 women. Of these, 745 (0.75%) had CIN2+. The multivariable model had a C-statistic of 0.81. All factors but race were independently associated with CIN2+. The model categorized women as having below-average CIN2+ risk (0.15% predicted vs. 0.12% observed risk), average CIN2+ risk (0.42% predicted vs. 0.36% observed), and above-average CIN2+ risk (1.76% predicted vs. 1.85% observed). Before screening, women at below-average risk had a risk of CIN2+ well below that of women with ASCUS and HPV negative (0.12 vs. 0.20%). A multivariable model using data from the electronic health record was able to stratify women across a 50-fold gradient of risk for CIN2+. After further validation, use of a similar model could enable more targeted cervical cancer screening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available