Marc Arbyn

Prof. Dr. Marc Arbyn

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

9Years (2018-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2020 in The Lancet Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MAMarc Arbyn
Marc Arbyn
EWElisabete Weiderpass
Elisabete Weiderpass
LBLaia Bruni
Laia Bruni
SSSilvia de Sanjosé
Silvia de Sanjosé
MSMona Saraiya
Mona Saraiya
FBFreddie Bray
Freddie Bray
The knowledge that persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the main cause of cervical cancer has resulted in the development of prophylactic vaccines to prevent HPV infection and HPV assays that detect nucleic acids of the virus. WHO has launched a Global Initiative to scale up preventive, screening, and treatment interventions to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem during the 21st century. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the existing burden of cervical cancer as a baseline from which to assess the effect of this initiative. For this worldwide analysis, we used data of cancer estimates from 185 countries from the Global Cancer Observatory 2018 database. We used a hierarchy of methods dependent on the availability and quality of the source information from population-based cancer registries to estimate incidence of cervical cancer. For estimation of cervical cancer mortality, we used the WHO mortality database. Countries were grouped in 21 subcontinents and were also categorised as high-resource or lower-resource countries, on the basis of their Human Development Index. We calculated the number of cervical cancer cases and deaths in a given country, directly age-standardised incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer, indirectly standardised incidence ratio and mortality ratio, cumulative incidence and mortality rate, and average age at diagnosis. Approximately 570 000 cases of cervical cancer and 311 000 deaths from the disease occurred in 2018. Cervical cancer was the fourth most common cancer in women, ranking after breast cancer (2·1 million cases), colorectal cancer (0·8 million) and lung cancer (0·7 million). The estimated age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer was 13·1 per 100 000 women globally and varied widely among countries, with rates ranging from less than 2 to 75 per 100 000 women. Cervical cancer was the leading cause of cancer-related death in women in eastern, western, middle, and southern Africa. The highest incidence was estimated in Eswatini, with approximately 6·5% of women developing cervical cancer before age 75 years. China and India together contributed more than a third of the global cervical burden, with 106 000 cases in China and 97 000 cases in India, and 48 000 deaths in China and 60 000 deaths in India. Globally, the average age at diagnosis of cervical cancer was 53 years, ranging from 44 years (Vanuatu) to 68 years (Singapore). The global average age at death from cervical cancer was 59 years, ranging from 45 years (Vanuatu) to 76 years (Martinique). Cervical cancer ranked in the top three cancers affecting women younger than 45 years in 146 (79%) of 185 countries assessed. Cervical cancer continues to be a major public health problem affecting middle-aged women, particularly in less-resourced countries. The global scale-up of HPV vaccination and HPV-based screening-including self-sampling-has potential to make cervical cancer a rare disease in the decades to come. Our study could help shape and monitor the initiative to eliminate cervical cancer as a major public health problem. Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, DG Research and Innovation of the European Commission, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

5 December 2018 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MAMarc Arbyn
Marc Arbyn
SSSara B Smith
Sara B Smith
STSarah Temin
Sarah Temin
FSFarhana Sultana
Farhana Sultana
PCPhilip Castle
Philip Castle
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women.Design: Updated meta-analysis.Data sources: Medline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review).Review methods: Accuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women.Results: 56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman’s home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I2>95%).Conclusions: When used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.

9 May 2018 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MAMarc Arbyn
Marc Arbyn
LXLan Xu
Lan Xu
CSCindy Simoens
Cindy Simoens
PMPierre Pl Martin-Hirsch
Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch

1 August 2021 in Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MAMarc Arbyn
Marc Arbyn
MSMarie Simon
Marie Simon
EPEliana Peeters
Eliana Peeters
LXLan Xu
Lan Xu
CMChris J.L.M. Meijer
Chris J.L.M. Meijer
MPMario Poljak
Mario Poljak
Only clinically validated HPV assays can be accepted in cervical cancer screening. To update the list of high-risk HPV assays that fulfil the 2009 international validation criteria (Meijer-2009). PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, references from selected studies; published in January 2014-August 2020. HPV test validation studies and primary screening studies, involving testing with an index HPV test and a comparator HPV test with reporting of disease outcome (occurrence of histologically confirmed cervical precancer [CIN2+]). Overview tables of relative sensitivity and specificity, including non-inferiority statistics and test reproducibility; random-effect meta-analyses of the relative sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ on index-vs comparator HPV tests. Women participating in cervical cancer screening. Testing with an index and a comparator HPV test of clinician-collected cervical specimens and assessment of disease outcome (

29 November 2018 in Expert Review of Vaccines
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMarc Arbyn
Marc Arbyn
LXL. Xu
L. Xu
Introduction: Recently, the evidence on efficacy and safety of prophylactic HPV vaccines derived from randomized trials was published in the Cochrane database of Systematic reviews. A summary of this Cochrane review is presented below. Areas covered: Only trials involving mono-, bi-, and quadrivalent HPV vaccines were included. Trials evaluating the nonavalent vaccine were excluded since women in the control group received the quadrivalent vaccine. Main efficacy outcomes were: histologically confirmed cervical precancer lesions distinguishing those associated with vaccine HPV types and any cervical precancer. Exposure groups were: women aged: 15–26 or 24–45 years being initially negative for high-risk HPV (hrHPV) or negative for the vaccine types and women unselected by HPV status. Expert commentary: All evaluated vaccines offered excellent protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 (CIN2 or CIN3) and adenocarcinoma in situ associated with HPV16/18 infection in young women who were not initially infected with hrHPV or HPV16/18. Vaccine efficacy was lower when all women regardless of HPV DNA status at enrollment were included. In young women, HPV vaccination protected also against any cervical precancer but the magnitude of protection was lower than against HPV16/18 associated cervical precancer. Vaccine efficacy was lower in mid-adult (aged 24–45 years) women. No protection against cervical precancer was found in mid-adult women unselected by HPV DNA status at enrollment. Trials were not empowered to address protection against cervical cancer. Occurrence of severe adverse events or adverse pregnancy outcomes was not significantly higher in recipients of HPV vaccines than in women included in the control arms.

14 December 2022 in British Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SCStefanie Costa
Stefanie Costa
BVBo Verberckmoes
Bo Verberckmoes
PCPhilip E. Castle
Philip E. Castle
MAMarc Arbyn
Marc Arbyn