4.2 Article

Performance of Cervical Cancer Screening Techniques in HIV-Infected Women in Uganda

期刊

JOURNAL OF LOWER GENITAL TRACT DISEASE
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 215-219

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000090

关键词

HIV; human papillomavirus (HPV); cervical cancer; screening tests; Uganda

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP23519_01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Women infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have a higher risk of HPV infections and developing cervical cancer, thus screening them is imperative. This study was aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of 3 cervical cancer screening options among HIV-infected women in Uganda. Materials and Methods Data from 2,337 Ugandan women who reported their HIV status were obtained from a population-based cervical cancer screening study. Women were offered 3 screening tests: vaginal and cervical careHPV and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), and the results were evaluated by HIV status. Results The prevalence of HIV infection was 16.5%. Women infected with HIV had a higher prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) than uninfected women (12.9% vs 1.7%; p < .001). The sensitivity for cervical careHPV among the HIV-infected women was 94.3% compared to 81.3% among the uninfected women. Whereas the sensitivity for vaginal careHPV was also higher among the HIV-infected women, the sensitivity of VIA was higher among the uninfected women. The mean vaginal and cervical careHPV signal strength was higher in the HIV-infected women than in the uninfected women (p < .001). ConclusionsCareHPV is very sensitive for detecting CIN2+ in HIV-infected women, even using a vaginal sample. The sensitivity of careHPV in HIV-infected women is higher than in HIV-uninfected women. However, additional research is needed to determine the best option for screening and triage of HPV-positive women that can be implemented in low-resource settings, especially among HIV- and HPV-positive women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据