While incidence and mortality rates for most cancers (including lung, colorectum, female breast, and prostate) are decreasing in the United States and many other western countries, they are increasing in several less developed and economically transitioning countries because of adoption of unhealthy western lifestyles such as smoking and physical inactivity and consumption of calorie-dense food. Indeed, the rates for lung and colon cancers in a few of these countries have already surpassed those in the United States and other western countries. Most developing countries also continue to be disproportionately affected by cancers related to infectious agents, such as cervix, liver, and stomach cancers. The proportion of new cancer cases diagnosed in less developed countries is projected to increase from about 56% of the world total in 2008 to more than 60% in 2030 because of the increasing trends in cancer rates and expected increases in life expectancy and growth of the population. In this review, we describe these changing global incidence and mortality patterns for select common cancers and the opportunities for cancer prevention in developing countries.

https://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/cebp/19/8/1893.full.pdf

Global Patterns of Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends

Overview of Human Papillomavirus-Based and Other Novel Options for Cervical Cancer Screening in Developed and Developing Countries

Screening tests are widely used in medicine to assess the likelihood that members of a defined population have a particular disease. This article presents an overview of such tests including the definitions of key technical (sensitivity and specificity) and population characteristics necessary to assess the benefits and limitations of such tests. Several examples are used to illustrate calculations, including the characteristics of low dose computed tomography as a lung cancer screen, choice of an optimal PSA cutoff and selection of the population to undergo mammography. The importance of careful consideration of the consequences of both false positives and negatives is highlighted. Receiver operating characteristic curves are explained as is the need to carefully select the population group to be tested.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/08958378.2014.955932

Screening tests: a review with examples

Cervical cancer worldwide.

Background
Cervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis, HPV testing has been proposed as an alternative screening test.

Objectives
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV testing for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), including adenocarcinoma in situ, in women participating in primary cervical cancer screening; and how it compares to the accuracy of cytological testing (liquid-based and conventional) at various thresholds.

Search methods
We performed a systematic literature search of articles in MEDLINE and Embase (1992 to November 2015) containing quantitative data and handsearched the reference lists of retrieved articles.

Selection criteria
We included comparative test accuracy studies if all women received both HPV testing and cervical cytology followed by verification of the disease status with the reference standard, if positive for at least one screening test. The studies had to include women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme who were not being followed up for previous cytological abnormalities.

Data collection and analysis
We completed a 2 x 2 table with the number of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives for each screening test (HPV test and cytology) used in each study. We calculated the absolute and relative sensitivities and the specificities of the tests for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ at various thresholds and computed sensitivity (TP/(TP + TN) and specificity (TN/ (TN + FP) for each test separately. Relative sensitivity and specificity of one test compared to another test were defined as sensitivity of test-1 over sensitivity of test-2 and specificity of test-1 over specificity of test-2, respectively. To assess bias in the studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. We used a bivariate random-effects model for computing pooled accuracy estimates. This model takes into account the within- and between-study variability and the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity.

Main results
We included a total of 40 studies in the review, with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old. Many studies were at low risk of bias. There were a sufficient number of included studies with adequate methodology to perform the following test comparisons: hybrid capture 2 (HC2) (1 pg/mL threshold) versus conventional cytology (CC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)+ and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL)+ thresholds) or liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds), other high-risk HPV tests versus conventional cytology (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds) or LBC (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds). For CIN 2+, pooled sensitivity estimates for HC2, CC and LBC (ASCUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, and pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively. The results did not differ by age of women (less than or greater than 30 years old), or in studies with verification bias. Accuracy of HC2 was, however, greater in European countries compared to other countries. The results for the sensitivity of the tests were heterogeneous ranging from 52% to 94% for LBC, and 61% to 100% for HC2. Overall, the quality of the evidence for the sensitivity of the tests was moderate, and high for the specificity.

The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 2+ was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.86) and the relative specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), and versus LBC for CIN 2+ was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.26) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 3+ was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.91) and the relative specificity 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus LBC for CIN 3+ was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97).

Authors' conclusions
Whilst HPV tests are less likely to miss cases of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+, these tests do lead to more unnecessary referrals. However, a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative cytological test, as the cytological test has a greater chance of being falsely negative, which could lead to delays in receiving the appropriate treatment. Evidence from prospective longitudinal studies is needed to establish the relative clinical implications of these tests.

Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population

Cervical cancer is the main cancer among women in sub-Saharan Africa, India and other parts of the developing world. Evaluation of screening performance of effective, feasible and affordable early detection and management methods is a public health priority. Five screening methods, naked eye visual inspection of the cervix uteri after application of diluted acetic acid (VIA), or Lugol's iodine (VILI) or with a magnifying device (VIAM), the Pap smear and human papillomavirus testing with the high-risk probe of the Hybrid Capture-2 assay (HC2), were evaluated in 11 studies in India and Africa. More than 58,000 women, aged 25-64 years, were tested with 2-5 screening tests and outcome verification was done on all women independent of the screen test results. The outcome was presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) of different degrees or invasive cervical cancer. Verification was based on colposcopy and histological interpretation of colposcopy-directed biopsies. Negative colposcopy was accepted as a truly negative outcome. VIA showed a sensitivity of 79% (95% CI 73-85%) and 83% (95% CI 77-89%), and a specificity of 85% (95% CI 81-89%) and 84% (95% CI 80-88%) for the outcomes CIN2+ or CIN3+, respectively. VILI was on average 10% more sensitive and equally specific. VIAM showed similar results as VIA. The Pap smear showed lowest sensitivity, even at the lowest cutoff of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (57%; 95% CI 38-76%) for CIN2+ but the specificity was rather high (93%; 95% CI 89-97%). The HC2-assay showed a sensitivity for CIN2+ of 62% (95% CI 56-68%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92-95%). Substantial interstudy variation was observed in the accuracy of the visual screening methods. Accuracy of visual methods and cytology increased over time, whereas performance of HC2 was constant. Results of visual tests and colposcopy were highly correlated. This study was the largest ever done that evaluates the cross-sectional accuracy of screening tests for cervical cancer precursors in developing countries. The merit of the study was that all screened subjects were submitted to confirmatory investigations avoiding to verification bias. A major finding was the consistently higher sensitivity but equal specificity of VILI compared with VIA. Nevertheless, some caution is warranted in the interpretation of observed accuracy measures, since a certain degree of gold standard misclassification cannot be excluded. Because of the correlation between visual screening tests and colposcopy and a certain degree of over-diagnosis of apparent CIN2+ by study pathologists, it is possible that both sensitivity and specificity of VIA and VILI were overestimated. Gold standard verification error could also explain the surprisingly low sensitivity of HC2, which contrasts with findings from other studies.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijc.23489

Boblewende Sakande

Papers

Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India.