Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Br J Cancer ; 127(10): 1816-1826, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35995936

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening participation is suboptimal in most settings. We assessed whether human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling may increase screening participation among long-term non-attenders in Norway. METHODS: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with participation as the primary outcome was initiated in the national cervical screening programme in March 2019. A random sample of 6000 women aged 35-69 years who had not attended screening for at least 10 years were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either (i) a reminder to attend regular screening (control), (ii) an offer to order a self-sampling kit (opt-in) for HPV testing or (iii) a self-sampling kit unsolicited (send-to-all) for HPV testing. RESULTS: Total participation was 4.8%, 17.0% and 27.7% among control, opt-in and send-to-all (P < 0.0001; participation difference (%) send-to-all vs. control: 22.9 (95%CI: 20.7, 25.2); opt-in vs. control: 12.3 (95%CI: 10.3, 14.2); send-to-all vs. opt-in: 10.7 (95% CI: 8.0, 13.3)). High-risk HPV was detected in 11.5% of self-samples and 9.2% of clinician-collected samples (P = 0.40). Most women (92.5%) who returned a positive self-sample attended the clinic for triage testing. Of the 933 women screened, 33 (3.5%) had CIN2 + (1.1%, 3.7%, 3.8% among control, opt-in, and send-to-all, respectively), and 11 (1.2%) had cervical cancer (0%, 1.2%, 1.3% among control, opt-in, send-to-all, respectively). CONCLUSION: Opt-in and send-to-all self-sampling increased screening participation among long-term, higher-risk non-attenders. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03873376.


Subject(s)
Alphapapillomavirus , Papillomavirus Infections , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/prevention & control , Papillomaviridae/genetics , Early Detection of Cancer , Papillomavirus Infections/diagnosis , Specimen Handling , Mass Screening , Vaginal Smears
2.
Int J Cancer ; 141(5): 967-976, 2017 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28542846

ABSTRACT

The prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer remains unsettled. We aimed to assess the prognostic value of this phenotype analyzing a total of 1126 tumor samples obtained from two Norwegian consecutive colorectal cancer series. CIMP status was determined by analyzing the 5-markers CAGNA1G, IGF2, NEUROG1, RUNX3 and SOCS1 by quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP). The effect of CIMP on time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were determined by uni- and multivariate analyses. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to MSI and BRAF mutation status, disease stage, and also age at time of diagnosis (<60, 60-74, ≥75 years). Patients with CIMP positive tumors demonstrated significantly shorter TTR and worse OS compared to those with CIMP negative tumors (multivariate hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.86 [1.31-2.63] and 1.89 [1.34-2.65], respectively). In stratified analyses, CIMP tumors showed significantly worse outcome among patients with microsatellite stable (MSS, P < 0.001), and MSS BRAF mutated tumors (P < 0.001), a finding that persisted in patients with stage II, III or IV disease, and that remained significant in multivariate analysis (P < 0.01). Consistent results were found for all three age groups. To conclude, CIMP is significantly associated with inferior outcome for colorectal cancer patients, and can stratify the poor prognostic patients with MSS BRAF mutated tumors.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , CpG Islands/genetics , DNA Methylation/genetics , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , DNA Mutational Analysis , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Mutation , Phenotype , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Proportional Hazards Models , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...