4.6 Article

Two Epstein-Barr Virus-Related Serologic Antibody Tests in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Screening: Results From the Initial Phase of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Southern China

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 177, Issue 3, Pages 242-250

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kws404

Keywords

biomarker; early detection; Epstein-Barr virus; mass screening; nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Funding

  1. Eleventh National Science and Technology Support Program of China [2006BAI02A11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) mass screening trial using a combination of immunoglobulin A antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus capsid antigen and nuclear antigen-1 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in addition to indirect mirror examination in the nasopharynx and/or lymphatic palpation (IMLP) was conducted in southern China. Cantonese aged 3059 years residing in 2 cities randomly selected by cluster sampling, Sihui and Zhongshan, were invited to participate in this screening from May 2008 through May 2010. Participants were offered fiberoptic endoscopy examination and/or pathologic biopsy if their serologic tests reached our predefined level of high risk or if results from the physical examination indicated possible cancer (i.e., were IMLP positive). A total of 28,688 individuals were voluntarily screened in the initial round. The overall NPC detection rate was 0.14 (41/28,688) with an early diagnosis rate of 68.3 (28/41) during the first year of follow-up. Thirty-eight of 41 cases (92.7) were detected among the high-risk group, and 7 of 41 cases (17.1) were detected among the IMLP-positive group. The 2 Epstein-Barr virus serologic tests by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay could be a feasible alternative for NPC screening in endemic areas. Further follow-up is needed to examine whether screening has an effect on decreasing mortality from NPC in these areas.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available