A framework provided an outline toward the proper evaluation of potential screening strategies

Centre of General Practice, Department of Public health and Primary Care, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: .
Journal of clinical epidemiology (Impact Factor: 3.42). 02/2013; 66(6). DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.018
Source: PubMed


Screening tests are often introduced into clinical practice without proper evaluation, despite the increasing awareness that screening is a double-edged sword that can lead to either net benefits or harms. Our objective was to develop a comprehensive framework for the evaluation of new screening strategies.

Study design and setting:
Elaborating on the existing concepts proposed by experts, a stepwise framework is proposed to evaluate whether a potential screening test can be introduced as a screening strategy into clinical practice. The principle of screening strategy evaluation is illustrated for cervical cancer, which is a template for screening because of the existence of an easily detectable and treatable precursor lesion.

The evaluation procedure consists of six consecutive steps. In steps 1-4, the technical accuracy, place of the test in the screening pathway, diagnostic accuracy, and longitudinal sensitivity and specificity of the screening test are assessed. In steps 5 and 6, the impact of the screening strategy on the patient and population levels, respectively, is evaluated. The framework incorporates a harm and benefit trade-off and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Our framework provides an outline toward the proper evaluation of potential screening strategies before considering implementation.

Download full-text


Available from: Wim J Adriaensen, Oct 07, 2015
31 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical screening programs for detecting cancer and precancer have dramatically reduced the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer since the 1960s. The efficacy of the screening programs depends on participation and the accuracy of the screening tests. Unfortunately, the participation rates are suboptimal; more than half the women with cervical cancer have not or have only sporadically been screened. Increasing participation is the best way of maximizing the program's benefit. Furthermore, cytology screening lacks high sensitivity for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (≥CIN2). High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening is more sensitive in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than cytology screening, but less specific, so that additional triage testing is still mandatory. The aim of this article is to reflect on the efficacy of current cervical cancer screening and on promising future screening strategies with primary hrHPV testing and additional triage strategies for hrHPV-positive screening results.
    Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy 11/2013; 14(1). DOI:10.1586/14737140.2014.856273 · 2.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess whether the increased sensitivity of screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) may represent overdiagnosis and to compare the long term duration of protective effect against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in HPV based and cytology based screening. 13 year follow-up of the Swedescreen randomised controlled trial of primary HPV screening. Organised cervical screening programme in Sweden. 12 527 women aged 32-38 attending organised screening were enrolled and randomised to HPV and cytology double testing (intervention arm, n=6257) or to cytology only, with samples frozen for future HPV testing (control arm, n=6270). Cumulative incidence of CIN2+ and CIN3+ (Kaplan Meier curves). Longitudinal test characteristics were calculated for cytology only, HPV testing only, and cytology and HPV testing combined, adjusting for censoring. The increased detection of CIN2+ in the intervention arm decreased over time. After six years, the cumulative incidence of CIN3+ was similar in both trial arms, and after 11 years the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ became similar in both arms. The longitudinal sensitivity of cytology for CIN2+ in the control arm at three years was similar to the sensitivity of HPV testing in the intervention arm at five years of follow-up: 85.94% (95% confidence interval 76.85% to 91.84%) v 86.40% (79.21% to 91.37%). The sensitivity of HPV screening for CIN3+after five years was 89.34% (80.10% to 94.58%) and for cytology after three years was 92.02% (80.59% to 96.97%). Over long term follow-up, the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ was the same for HPV screening and for cytology, implying that the increased sensitivity of HPV screening for CIN2+ reflects earlier detection rather than overdiagnosis. The low long term risks of CIN3+ among women who tested negative in HPV screening, support screening intervals of five years for such women. NCT00479375.
    BMJ (online) 01/2014; 348(jan16 1):g130. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g130 · 17.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present strategy to identify infants needing treatment for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) requires repeated examinations of at-risk infants by physicians. However, less than 10% ultimately require treatment. Retinal imaging by nonphysicians with remote image interpretation by nonphysicians may provide a more efficient strategy.
    Jama Ophthalmology 06/2014; 132(10). DOI:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.1604 · 3.32 Impact Factor
Show more