Explore the vast range of titles available.

Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians. We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models. We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69–82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72–92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83–89) and 87% (84–90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85–0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83–0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95–0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93–0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples. In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs. The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.

In order to update the previous version of the European Code against Cancer and formulate evidence-based recommendations, a systematic search of the literature was performed according to the methodology agreed by the Code Working Groups. Based on the review, the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer recommends: “Take part in organized cancer screening programmes for: •Bowel cancer (men and women)•Breast cancer (women)•Cervical cancer (women).” Organized screening programs are preferable because they provide better conditions to ensure that the Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Screening are followed in order to achieve the greatest benefit with the least harm. Screening is recommended only for those cancers where a demonstrated life-saving effect substantially outweighs the potential harm of examining very large numbers of people who may otherwise never have, or suffer from, these cancers, and when an adequate quality of the screening is achieved. EU citizens are recommended to participate in cancer screening each time an invitation from the national or regional screening program is received and after having read the information materials provided and carefully considered the potential benefits and harms of screening. Screening programs in the European Union vary with respect to the age groups invited and to the interval between invitations, depending on each country's cancer burden, local resources, and the type of screening test used For colorectal cancer, most programs in the EU invite men and women starting at the age of 50–60 years, and from then on every 2 years if the screening test is the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test, or every 10 years or more if the screening test is flexible sigmoidoscopy or total colonoscopy. Most programs continue sending invitations to screening up to the age of 70–75 years. For breast cancer, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 50 years, and not before the age of 40 years, and from then on every 2 years until the age of 70–75 years. For cervical cancer, if cytology (Pap) testing is used for screening, most programs in the EU invite women starting at the age of 25–30 years and from then on every 3 or 5 years. If human papillomavirus testing is used for screening, most women are invited starting at the age of 35 years (usually not before age 30 years) and from then on every 5 years or more. Irrespective of the test used, women continue participating in screening until the age of 60 or 65 years, and continue beyond this age unless the most recent test results are normal.

This overview describes the principles of the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer and provides an introduction to the 12 recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Among the 504.6 million inhabitants of the member states of the European Union (EU28), there are annually 2.64 million new cancer cases and 1.28 million deaths from cancer. It is estimated that this cancer burden could be reduced by up to one half if scientific knowledge on causes of cancer could be translated into successful prevention. The Code is a preventive tool aimed to reduce the cancer burden by informing people how to avoid or reduce carcinogenic exposures, adopt behaviours to reduce the cancer risk, or to participate in organised intervention programmes. The Code should also form a base to guide national health policies in cancer prevention. The 12 recommendations are: not smoking or using other tobacco products; avoiding second-hand smoke; being a healthy body weight; encouraging physical activity; having a healthy diet; limiting alcohol consumption, with not drinking alcohol being better for cancer prevention; avoiding too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation; avoiding cancer-causing agents at the workplace; reducing exposure to high levels of radon; encouraging breastfeeding; limiting the use of hormone replacement therapy; participating in organised vaccination programmes against hepatitis B for newborns and human papillomavirus for girls; and participating in organised screening programmes for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer.

Objective The longitudinal epidemiological development of the new variant of Chlamydia trachomatis was studied after appropriate testing procedures had been introduced when the strain was detected in 2006. Methods The number of cases of the new variant of C trachomatis was followed from 2007 through 2011 from the laboratory records. Testing for C trachomatis is centralised to one laboratory with around 80–85 000 persons being tested annually in a population of 1.1 million. Results During the 5-year period, 410 973 patients were tested of which 25 723 cases were positive. The proportion of the new variant of all positive cases declined from 30% in 2007 to 6% in 2011. While the number of the new variant of C trachomatis declined, the ordinary wild-type strains remained largely unchanged. Conclusions A selective decline of the new variant of C trachomatis has occurred after appropriate laboratory testing was introduced. A new balance point between 5% and 10% for the new variant seems to be gradually approached.

A receptor for the adhesive basement membrane protein, laminin, was isolated from human glioblastoma cells by affinity chromatography on laminin. This receptor has a heterodimeric structure similar to that of receptors for other extracellular matrix proteins such as fibronectin and vitronectin. Incorporation of the laminin receptor into liposomal membranes makes it possible for liposomes to attach to surfaces coated with laminin. The receptor liposomes also attached to some extent to surfaces coated with fibronectin, but not with other matrix proteins. These properties identify the laminin receptor as a member of the integrin family of cell adhesion receptors.

The growing awareness of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical carcinoma has triggered a search for uncomplicated detection methods. To define a serologic response to HPV, we synthesized peptides based on sequences deduced from the genome of HPV type 16, the most common malignancy-associated type of HPV. One of these peptides reacted with IgA antibodies present in sera from 24 of 33 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cervical carcinoma, whereas this peptide reacted with only 6 of 27 sera from individuals without cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Immunoaffinity-purified human antipeptide IgA antibodies detected HPV-specific 58- and 48-kDa proteins in cervical carcinoma cell extracts and also detected a nuclear antigen in HPV-carrying cervical cancer cell lines and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia biopsied tissue. These antigens were also detected with mouse monoclonal and rabbit polyclonal antibodies to the same peptide. The results indicate that screening for infection with malignancy-associated types of HPV may be possible by simple synthetic peptide-based serology.

Cervical cancer (CC) screening in women comprises human papillomavirus (HPV) testing followed by cytology triage of positive cases. Drawbacks, including cytology’s low reproducibility and requirement for short screening intervals, raise the need for alternative triage methods. Here we used an innovative triage technique, the WID-qCIN test, to assess the DNA methylation of human genes DPP6 , RALYL and GSX1 in a real-life cohort of 28,017 women aged ≥30 years who attended CC screening in Stockholm between January and March 2017. In the analysis of all 2,377 HPV-positive samples, a combination of WID-qCIN (with a predefined threshold) and HPV16 and/or HPV18 (HPV16/18) detected 93.4% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and 100% of invasive CCs. The WID-qCIN/HPV16/18 combination predicted 69.4% of incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse compared with 18.2% predicted by cytology. Cytology or WID-qCIN/HPV16/18 triage would require 4.1 and 2.4 colposcopy referrals to detect one cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, respectively, during the 6 year period. These findings support the use of WID-qCIN/HPV16/18 as an improved triage strategy for HPV-positive women. In a real-world Swedish cohort of 28,017 women, screening for cervical cancer using a DNA methylation-based tool, the WID-qCIN test, either alone or in combination with HPV16/18 genotyping, showed better performance than cytology in triaging HPV-positive women.

BackgroundAdverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance.ObjectiveTo report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method.MethodMEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs).ResultsWe included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%–59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%–36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%–53.8% and 6.9%–91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%–33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%–96.2% and 4.5%–98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%–91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies.ConclusionThe reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results.