0000000000585743

AUTHOR

Dirk Schriefer

0000-0002-7524-7628

showing 3 related works from this author

Invitation to cervical cancer screening does increase participation in Germany: Results from the MARZY study

2016

The effect of different invitation models on participation in cervical cancer screening (CCS) was investigated in a randomized population-based cohort study in Germany. Participants were randomly selected via population registries and randomized into intervention Arm A (invitation letter) and Arm B (invitation letter and information brochure) or control Arm C (no invitation). The intervention and control arms were compared with regard to 3-year participation and the two invitation models were compared between intervention arms. Of the 7,758 eligible women aged 30-65 years, living in the city of Mainz and in the rural region of Mainz-Bingen, 5,265 were included in the analysis. Differences i…

Cancer Researchmedicine.medical_specialtyeducation.field_of_studybusiness.industryPopulationIntervention groupOdds ratioCervical cancer screeningLogistic regressionConfidence interval03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineOncology030220 oncology & carcinogenesisPhysical therapymedicine030212 general & internal medicineeducationbusinessDemographyCohort studySchool educationInternational Journal of Cancer
researchProduct

Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear Test, Liquid-Based Cytology, and Human Papillomavirus Testing as Stand-alone or Cotes…

2020

Abstract Background: Some countries have implemented stand-alone human papillomavirus (HPV) testing while others consider cotesting for cervical cancer screening. We compared both strategies within a population-based study. Methods: The MARZY cohort study was conducted in Germany. Randomly selected women from population registries aged ≥30 years (n = 5,275) were invited to screening with Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC, ThinPrep), and HPV testing (Hybrid Capture2, HC2). Screen-positive participants [ASC-US+ or high-risk HC2 (hrHC2)] and a random 5% sample of screen-negatives were referred to colposcopy. Post hoc HPV genotyping was conducted by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA with reverse line blottin…

0301 basic medicinemedicine.medical_specialtyEpidemiologyPopulationUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAlphapapillomavirusCervical cancer screeningSensitivity and SpecificityCohort Studies03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicinePregnancyCytologymedicineHumanseducationPapillomaviridaeEarly Detection of CancerVaginal SmearsColposcopyeducation.field_of_studymedicine.diagnostic_testbusiness.industryObstetricsPapillomavirus InfectionsConfidence interval030104 developmental biologyOncologyColposcopy030220 oncology & carcinogenesisVerification biasLiquid-based cytologyFemalebusinessPapanicolaou TestCohort studyCancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
researchProduct

976Screening for cervical cancer with Human Papillomavirus testing: stand-alone is preferable over co-testing with cytology

2021

Abstract Background Cervical cancer screening can be conducted with cytology and Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing but few studies have compared the latter directly to concomitant testing (co-testing). We compared these strategies to determine appropriate screening. Methods Within a randomised population-based cohort study conducted around Mainz, Germany, eligible women (≥30 years) were screened via Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV testing (HC2) and HPV genotyped post hoc (PCR). These tests formed three strategies: cytology (Pap or LBC) and HPV (HC2 or PCR) stand-alone and co-testing. Screen positives and 5% negative women were invited to colposcopy. Absolute and relative sen…

Cervical cancerOncologyColposcopymedicine.medical_specialtyRandomizationmedicine.diagnostic_testEpidemiologybusiness.industryGeneral Medicinemedicine.diseaseCervical cancer screeningInternal medicineCytologyMedicineHuman papillomavirusbusinessInternational Journal of Epidemiology
researchProduct