Beal CM, Salmerón J, Flores YN, Torres L, Granados-García V, Dugan E, Lazcano-Ponce E

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 34
Paginas: 492-501
Archivo PDF: 337.54 Kb.

RESUMEN

Objetivo. Comparar los costos y los casos no detectados de cuatro estrategias de tamizaje de cáncer cervical (ETCC) en México. Material y métodos. Se estimaron los costos y resultados en salud de las siguientes ETCC: a) citología convencional como único procedimiento de tamizaje; b) detección de virus del papiloma humano de alto riesgo (VPH-AR) como tamizaje primario y citología convencional como procedimiento de triage; c) detección de VPH-AR como tamizaje primario y tipificación de VPH-16/18, citología en base líquida e inmunotinción para p16/Ki67 como procedimientos de triage, y d) evaluación conjunta con VPH-AR y citología en base líquida como tamizaje primario y tipificación de VPH-16/18 e inmunotinción para p16/Ki67 como procedimientos de triage. El resultado en salud analizado fueron los casos de neoplasia intraepitelial cervical (CIN 2/3) o cáncer cervical detectados. Resultados. La ETCC basada en la detección de VPH-AR como prueba primaria y seguida de la tipificación de VPH- 16/18, la citología en base líquida y la inmunotinción para p16/ Ki67 como procedimientos de triage es la mejor alternativa, ya que es la menos costosa y la que tuvo un nivel aceptable de casos perdidos. Conclusiones. El costo de oportunidad de una ETCC de mala calidad es un alto número de falsos negativos. La combinación seriada de varias pruebas de tamizaje y triage puede ser una alternativa costo-efectiva para la detección oportuna de cáncer cervical en México.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Program for Appropriate Technology in Health. National history of cervical cancer: even infrequent screening of older women saves lives. Cervical Cancer Prevention Fact Sheet [internet series]. Seattle: Path, 2000. [Accessed September 17, 2014]. Available at: http://www.path.org/ publications/files/RH_natural_history_of_cc_fs.pdf

2. Palacio-Mejía LS, Lazcano-Ponce E, Allen-Leigh B, Hernández-Ávila M. Regional differences in breast and cervical cancer mortality in Mexico between 1979-2006. Salud Publica Mex 2009;51(2):S208-S219.

3. Hernández-ávila M, Lazcano-Ponce EC, Alonso-de Ruiz P, Romieu I. Evaluation of the cervical cancer screening program in Mexico: a population-based case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1998;27:1-7.

4. Lazcano-Ponce EC, Rascón-Pacheco RA, Lozano-Ascencio R, Velasco- Mondragón HE. Mortality from cervical carcinoma in Mexico: impact of screening, 1980-1990. Acta Cytol 1996;40:506-512.

5. America Society of Clinical Oncology. Cervical cancer screening with vinegar could prevent thousands of death each year in developing countries [internet series]. 2013. [Accessed September 17, 2014]. Available at: http://www.cancer.net/research-and-advocacy/research-summaries/ cervical-cancer-screening-vinegar-could-prevent-thousands-deaths-eachyear- developing-countries

6. Gravitt P, Coutlee F, Iftner T, Sellors J, Quint W, Wheeler C. New technologies in cervical cancer screening. Vaccine 2008;26S:K42-K52.

7. Placide J, Martens MG. Comparing screening methods for osteoporosis. Curr Womens Health Rep 2003;3(3):207-210.

8. Waxman A. Guidelines for cervical cancer screening: history and scientific rationale. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005;48(1):77-97.

9. Yeoh G, Tse M, Chan K, Lord L. Human papillomavirus DNA and liquid-based cervical cytology cotesting in screening and follow-up patient groups. Acta Cytol 2006;50(6):627-631.

10. Huchko M, Sneden J, Leslie H, Abdulrahim N, Maloba M, Bukusi E, Cohen C. A comparison of two visual inspection methods for cervical cancer screening among HIV-infected women in Kenya. Bull World Health Organ 2014;92(3):195-203.

11. Flores Y, Shah K, Lazcano E, Hernández M, Bishai D, Ferris D, et al. Design and methods of the evaluation of an HPV-based cervical cancer screening strategy in Mexico: The Morelos HPV Study. Salud Publica Mex 2002;44(4):335-344.

12. Bosch F, Qiao Y, Castellsagué X. The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infection and its association with cervical cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006;94:S8-S21.

13. Luu H, Dahlstrom K, Mullen P, VonVille H, Scheurer M. Comparison of the accuracy of Hybrid Capture II and polymerase chain reaction in detecting clinically important cervical dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med 2013;l 2(3):367-390.

14. Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Palma P, Mistro A, et al. Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(7):492-501.

15. Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, Sherman M, Bratti M, Wacholder S, et al. HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening results from women in a high-risk province in Costa Rica. JAMA 2000;283(1):87-93.

16. Cuzick J, Mayrand M, Ronco G, Snijders P, Wardle J. Chapter 10: New dimensions in cervical cancer screening. Vaccine 2006;24 suppl 3:S3/S90-S97.

17. Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer C, Clavel C, Koliopoulos G, Dillner J. Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing: A summary of metaanalyses. Vaccine 2006;24 suppl 3:S3/S78-S89.

18. Flores Y, Bishai D, Lörincz A, Shah K, Lazcano-Ponce E, Hernández M, et al. HPV testing for cervical cancer screening appears more costeffective than Papanicolau cytology in Mexico. Cancer Causes Control 2011;22(2):261-272

19. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Population: distribution by age and sex [internet series]. México: Inegi, 2010. [Accessed September 17, 2014]. Available at: http://www3.inegi.org.mx/Sistemas/temas/Default. aspx?s=est&c=17484

20. Salmerón J, Lazcano-Ponce E, Lorincz A, Hernández M, Hernández P, Leyva A, et al. Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico. Cancer Causes Control 2003;14(6):505-512.

21. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry K, Meijer C, Hoyer H, Ratnum S, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006;119:1095-1101.

22. Mayrand M, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter S, Hanley J, Ferenczy A, et al. Human papullomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357(16):1579-1588.

23. Einstein M, Martens M, Garcia F, Ferris D, Mitchell A, Day S, Olson M. Clinical validation of the Cervista HOV HR and 16/18 genotyping tests for use in women with ASC-US cytology. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118:116-122.

24. Zappacosta R, Colasante A, Viola P, D’Antuono T, Lattanzio G, Capanna S, et al. Chromogenic in situ hybridization and p16/Ki67 dual staining on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cervical specimens: correlation with HPV-DNA test, E6/E7 mRNA test, and potential clinical applications. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013: 453606.

25. Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Puig A, Reynales-Shigematsu LM. Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in Mexico: a transmission dynamic model-based evaluation. Vaccine 2007;26(1):128-39.

26. Moyer VA, US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement [internet series]. Ann Intern Med 2012;156(12):880-891. [Accessed September 17, 2014]. Available at: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce. org/uspstf11/cervcancer/cervcancerrs.pdf

27. Bernal-Silva S, Granados J, Gorodezky C, Aláez C, Flores-Aguilar H, Cerda-Flores RM, et al. HLA-DRB1 Class II antigen level alleles are associated with persistent HPV infection in Mexican women; a pilot study. Infect Agent Cancer 2013;8(1):31.

28. Bian M, Cheng J, Ma L, Cong X, Liu J, Chen Y, Chen X. Evaluation of the detection of 14 high-risk human papillomaviruses with HPV 16 and HPV 18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening. Exp Ther Med 2013;6(5):1332-1336.

29. Lazcano-Ponce E, Lörinz A, Salmerón J, Fernández I, Cruz A, Hernández P, et al. A pilot study of HPV DNA and cytology testing in 50 159 women in the routine Mexican Social Security Program. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21:1693-1700.

30. Duggan M, Brasher P. Accuracy of Pap test reported as CIN I. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21(2):129-136.

31. Spitzer M, Apgar B, Brotzman G. Management of histologic abnormalities of the cervix. Am Fam Physician 2006;73(1):105-112.

32. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, Wainwright H, Wright T. Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resources-poor settings. Cancer 2000;89(4):826-833.

33. Koliopoulos G, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Kyrgiou M, Prendiville W, Paraskevaidis E. Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:232-246.

34. Cuzick J, Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, Tsu V, Ronco G, Mayrand M, et al. Overview of human pappillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries. Vaccine 2008;19:26 suppl 10:K29-K41.