Cited by 177Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Human Papillomavirus–Based Cervical Cancer Prevention: Long-term Results of a Randomized Screening Trial

Denny, Lynette, Kuhn, Louise, Hu, Chih-Chi, Tsai, Wei-Yann, Wright, Thomas C.·2010·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

Background Screen-and-treat approaches to cervical cancer prevention are an attractive option for low-resource settings, but data on their long-term efficacy are lacking. We evaluated the efficacy of two screen-and-treat approaches through 36 months of follow-up in a randomized trial. Methods A total of 6637 unscreened South African women aged 35-65 years who were tested for the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in cervical samples underwent visual inspection of the cervix using acetic acid staining and HIV serotesting. Of these, 6555 were randomly assigned to three study arms: 1) HPV-and-treat, in which all women with a positive HPV DNA test result underwent cryotherapy; 2) visual inspection-and-treat, in which all women with a positive visual inspection test result underwent cryotherapy; or 3) control, in which further evaluation or treatment was delayed for 6 months. All women underwent colposcopy with biopsy at 6 months. All women who were HPV DNA- or visual inspection-positive at enrollment, and a subset of all other women had extended follow-up to 36 months (n = 3639) with yearly colposcopy. The endpoint-cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+)-was analyzed using actuarial life-table methods. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results After 36 months, there was a sustained statistically significant decrease in the cumulative detection of CIN2+ in the HPV-and-treat arm compared with the control arm (1.5% vs 5.6%, difference = 4.1%…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djq342

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Denny, L., Kuhn, L., Hu, C.-C., Tsai, W.-Y., & Wright, T. C.
Affiliations
University of Cape Town (ZA)
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2010-10-20
Volume
102
Issue
20
Pages
1557-1567
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2139631507
Cited by
177
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 18
FWCI
13.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
human papillomavirus, cervical cancer prevention, screen-and-treat, HPV testing, visual inspection with acetic acid, cryotherapy, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN2+, colposcopy, resource-limited settings, South Africa, long-term efficacy, cervical cancer screening, women living with HIV
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Biopsy, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Colposcopy, DNA, Viral, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, South Africa, Tumor Virus Infections, Vaginal Smears, Life Tables, Incidence, Cryotherapy, Papillomavirus Infections, Alphapapillomavirus

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