I question that clinicians and the public may be reassured that the evidence underpinning the renewal of the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) is sound.1 A fundamental aspect of the sensitivity of a screening test is the definition of the disease of interest that the test seeks to detect. For cancer screening, it is disease that will progress to life-threatening cancer and not the sensitivity to detect disease that only may progress to cancer.2,3 It is a very common but profound error to consider these equivalent,2 particularly when comparing two tests that measure different aspects of the disease process. Overdiagnosis and regression biases are avoided by using the interval cancer method to estimate sensitivity.2,3
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Carter J. The renewal of the National Cervical Screening Program. Med J Aust 2016; 205: 357-358. <MJA full text>
- 2. Malila N, Leinonen M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. The HPV test has similar sensitivity but more overdiagnosis that the Pap test — a randomised health services study on cervical cancer screening in Finland. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 2141-2147.
- 3. Hakama M, Auvinen A, Day NE, Miller AB. Sensitivity in cancer screening. J Med Screen 2007; 14: 174-177.
- 4. Lew J-B, Simms K, Smith M, et al. Effectiveness modelling and economic evaluation of primary HPV screening for cervical cancer prevention in New Zealand. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0151619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151619.
No relevant disclosures.