Cited by 1,810Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials

Open access
Ronco, Guglielmo, Dillner, Joakim, Elfström, K Miriam, Tunesi, Sara, Snijders, Peter J F, Arbyn, Marc, Kitchener, Henry, Segnan, Nereo +5 more·2014·The Lancet

Abstract

Background In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. Methods 176,464 women aged 20-64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1,214,415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. Findings The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40-0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46-1·36) but wa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62218-7

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ronco, G., Dillner, J., Elfström, K. M., Tunesi, S., Snijders, P. J. F., Arbyn, M., Kitchener, H., Segnan, N., Gilham, C., Giorgi-Rossi, P., Berkhof, J., Peto, J., & Meijer, C. J. L. M.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Ronco, Guglielmo
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
383
Issue
9916
Pages
524-532
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2121732950
Cited by
1,810
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 136 · 2025: 141 · 2024: 166 · 2023: 150 · 2022: 140 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 161 · 2019: 152 · 2018: 130 · 2017: 131 · 2016: 131 · 2015: 129 · 2014: 83 · 2013: 7
FWCI
84.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
PREDHICT project (242061)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
HPV-based cervical cancer screening, invasive cervical cancer, cytology-based screening, cancer prevention, screening efficacy, duration of protection, cervical cancer incidence, cervical cancer screening guidelines
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colposcopy, Cytological Techniques, Europe, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Invasiveness, Precancerous Conditions, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Incidence, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Papillomavirus Infections, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review