Advertisement

Apport du test HPV dans le dépistage primaire du cancer du col

  • J. Monsonego
Part of the Dépistage et cancer book series (DC)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
    Agence nationale pour le développement de l’évaluation médicale (1995) Pratique des frottis cervicaux pour le dépistage du cancer du col. In: Recommandations et références médicales. Tome 2. Paris: Andem 9–24Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patnick J (1997) Screening that failed to work. In: Franco E & Monsonego J (Eds) New developments in cervical cancer screening and prevention. Blackwwell Science, Oxford 200–2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agence nationale d’accréditation et d’évaluation en santé (Anaes) [2002] Conduite à tenir devant un frottis anormal du col de l’utérus. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique, Actualisation. ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Exbrayat C (2003) Col de l’utérus. In: Évolution de l’incidence et de la mortalité par cancer en France de 1978 à 2000. InVS 107–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rousseau A, Bohet P, Merlière J et al. (2002) Évaluation du dépistage organisé et du dépistage individuel du cancer du col de l’utérus: utilité des données de l’Assurance maladie. Bull Épidémiol Hebdo 19: 81–3Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ostor AG (1993) Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 12(2): 186–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council of the European Union (2003) Council recommendation of 2 decembre 2003 on cancer screening. Official J Eur Union L 327: 34–8Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weidmann C, Schaffer P, Hedelin G et al. (1998) L’incidence du cancer du col de l’utérus régresse régulièrement en France. BEH 5: 17–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Monsonego J (1997) Spontaneous screening: benefits and limitations. In: Franco E, Monsonego J. New developments in cervical cancer screening and prevention. Oxford: Blackwell Science 220–40Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Artmann KE, Hall SA, Nanda K et al. (2002) Screening for cervical cancer. Rockville (MD): AHRQGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Monsonego J. Enquête nationale sur le dépistage du cancer du col auprès des gynécologues. Gynécol Obstét pratique 81: 1–5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castaigne D, Camatte S (2004) Communication personnelle. Salon de Gynécologie PratiqueGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sawaya GF, Kerlikowske K, Lee NC et al. (2000) Frequency of cervical smear abnormalities within 3 years of normal cytology. Obstet Gynecol 96(2): 219–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shy K, Chu J, Mandelson M, Greer B et al. (1989) Papanicolaou smear screening interval and risk of cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 74(6): 838–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller MG, Sung HY, Sawaya GF et al. (2003) Screening interval and risk of invasive squamous cell cervical cancer Obstet Gynecol 101(1): 29–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M et al. (2000) Papanicolaou smear history and diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma among members of a large prepaid health plan. Cancer 88(10): 2283–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fylan F (1998) Screening for cervical cancer: a review of women’s attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 48: 1509–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    www.plancancer.frGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boulanger JC (1996) Explanation of invasive cervical cancer following treatment of CIN Communication personnelle, Congrès IFCPC Sydney, Monduzzi Ed. Bologne 175–9Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raffle AE (1997) Invasive cervical cancer after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet 349(9069): 1910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    IARC working group on cervical cancer screening, conclusions (1986) In Hakama M, Miller AD, Day N (eds). Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix. Lyon, France 133–44Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P (1995) Meta-analysis of pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 141: 680–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morell ND, Tyler JR, Snyder RN (1982) False negative cytologyrate in patients in whom invasive cervical cancer subsequently developed. Obstet Gynecol 60: 41–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De May RM (1997) Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121: 229–38Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Results of a randomised trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. ASCUS-L. SIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group (2003) Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(6): 1383–92Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koss LG (1989) The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and tragedy. JAMA 261: 737–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barrasso R (1997) Colposcopy as a screening tool for cervical cancer detection: a review. In: Franco E and Monsonego J Eds. New developments in cervical cancer screening and prevention. Blackwell Science, Oxford 400–5Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stoler MH, Schiffman M (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 285: 1500–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Limay A, Connor Amsy J, Huang X et al. (2003) Comparative analysis of conventional Papanicolaou tests ans a fluid-based thin-layer method. Arch Pathol Lab Med 12: 200–4Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeoh GPS, Chan KW, Lauder I et al. (1999) Evaluation of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test in clinical practice: 6-month study of 16541 cases with histological correlation in 220 cases. Hong Kong Med J 5: 233–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diaz-Rosario L, Kabawat S (1999) Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med 123: 817–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME et al. (1999) Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 87: 48–55Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Monsonego J, Autillo-Touati A, Bergeron C et al. (2001) Liquid based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening a multicentre study. Br J Cancer 84(3):382–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N et al. (2002) The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 55: 244–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Koutsky L (1997) Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Am J Med 102(5A): 3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schiffman M, Krüger Kjaer S (2003) Natural history of anogenital human papillomavirus infection and neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Institute Monographs 31:14–9Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Franco EL, Villa LL, Sobrinho JP et al. (1999) Epidemiology of acquisition and clearance of cervical human papillomavirus infection in women from a high-risk area for cervical cancer. J Infect Dis 180: 1415–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rozendaal L, Westerga J, van der Linden JC et al. (2000) PCR based high risk HPV testing is superior to neural network based screening for predicting incident CIN III in women with normal cytology and borderline changes. J Clin Pathol 53(8): 606–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Melkert PW, Hopman E, van den Brule AJ et al. (1993) Prevalence of HPV in cytomorphologically normal cervical smears, as determined by the polymerase chain reaction, is age-dependent. Int J Cancer 53(6): 919–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Koutsky LA, Holmes KK, Critchlow CW et al. (1992) A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med 327(18): 1272–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ho GY, Burk RD, Klein S et al. (1995) Persistent genital human papillomavirus infection as a risk factor for persistent cervical dysplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1365–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dalstein V, Riethmuller D, Pretet JL et al. (2003) Persistence and load of high-risk HPV are predictors for development of high-grade cervical lesions: a longitudinal French cohort study. Int J Cancer 106(3): 396–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bory JP, Cucherousset J, Lorenzato M et al. (2002) Recurrent human papillomavirus infection detected with the Hybrid Capture II assay selects women with normal cervical smears at risk for developing high grade cervical lesions: a longitudinal study of 3,091 women. Int J Cance 102(5): 519–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schlecht NF, Kulaga S, Robitaille J et al. (2001) Persistent human papillomavirus infection as a predictor of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. JAMA 286: 3106–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wallin KL, Wiklund F, Angstrom T et al. (1999) Type-specific persistence of human papillomavirus DNA before the development of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 341(22): 1633–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang SS, Hildesheim A (2003) Viral and host factors in human papillomavirus persistence and progression. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 31: 35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Monsonego J (1996) Papillomavirus et cancer du col de l’utérus. Médecine/Sciences 12: 733–44Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM et al. (1999) Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 189(1): 12–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lörincz A T, Richart RM (2003) Human Papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cytology in cervical screening programs. Arch. Pathol. Lab Med 127:959–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarrone R (2001) Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. J Natl Cancer Inst 93: 293–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS et al. (2002) 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 287:2120–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D (2003) Prospective follow-up suggest similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(6): 1406–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Guido R, Schiffman M, Solomon D et al. (2003) Postcolposcopy management strategies for women referred low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or human papillomavirus DANN-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a two-year prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(6):1401–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Clavel C, Cucherousset J, Lorenzato M et al. (2004) Negative human papillomavirus testing in normal smears selects a population at low risk for developing high grade cervical lesions. Br J Cancer in pressGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP et al. (2001) Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer 84: 1616–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H et al. (2003) Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 362: 1871–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB et al. (2002) Evaluating of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities. Comparaison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA 288: 1749–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nobbenhuis MA, Walboomers JM, Helmerhorst TJ et al. (1999) Relation of human papillomavirus status to cervical lesions and consequences for cervical-cancer screening: a prospective study. Lancet 354: 20–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ratnam S, Franco EL, Ferenczy A (2000) Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 9: 945–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A et al. (2000) HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening. Results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA 283: 87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petry KU, Menton S, Menton M et al. (2003) Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients. Br J Cancer 88: 1570–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wright JD, Schiffman M, Solomon D et al. (2004) Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening. Obstet Gynecol 103: 304–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Évaluation de l’intérêt de la recherche des papillomavirus humains dans le dépistage des lésions précancéreuses du col de l’utérus, Anaes. Évaluation technologique, Paris, mai 2004Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Maxwell GL, Carlson JW, Ochoa M et al. (2002) Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol 100: 740–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM et al. (2002) Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 287: 2372–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC (2004) Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol 103(4): 619–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Marteau TM (1989) Psychological costs of screening. BMJ 299: 527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Marteau TM (1990) Screening in practice: reducing the psychological cost. BMJ 30: 26–8Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Harper D, Philips Z, Jenkins D (2001) HPV testing: Psychosocial and cost-effectiveness studies of screening and HPV disease. Papillomavirus Rep 12: 1–5Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Davies P, Kornegay J, Iftner T (2001) Current methods of testing for human papillomavirus. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 15(5): 677–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D et al. (2002) American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52: 342–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    ACOG practice bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists (2003) Obstet Gynecol 102: 417–27Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Monsonego J et al. (2004) Cervical cancer control, priorities and new directions. Int J cancer 108: 329–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Arrêté du 19 mars modifiant l’arrêté du 3 avril 1985 fixant la nomenclature des actes de biologie médicale. Journal Officiel du 30 mars 2004Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM et al. (2002) Proof of Principle Study Investigators. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 347(21): 1645–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D et al. (2004) Projected clinical benefits and costeffectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(8):604–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Monsonego
    • 1
  1. 1.Paris

Personalised recommendations