Evaluating the performance of three different cervical cancer screening modalities in a large prospective population-based cohort

Abstract

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate three different patterns of cervical cancer screening strategies for detection of cervical diseases. MethodsIn total, 10,186 women aged 21–70 years attending cervical screening program were recruited and cotested by human papillomavirus (HPV) assays and cytology. Three-year histological follow-up data was recorded on women with abnormal screening results, and six clinically common screening algorithms were evaluated. ResultsSignificantly better protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or worse (CIN2+) at three-year follow-up was associated with a negative HPV result than by normal cytology at baseline. HPV screening was more sensitive and less specific than cytology screening. Moreover, HPV screening with HPV16/18 and reflex cytology (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS] threshold) showed a similar sensitivity (94.6% vs. 98.2%, p = 0.125) and a superior specificity as compared to cotesting reflex HPV16/18 and cytology (ASCUS threshold) for CIN2+ (95.8% vs. 95.1%, p < 0.0001), achieving a colposcopy referral rate of 5.4%, and consuming 4.8 colposcopies and 4.4 cytology tests to find one CIN2+. ConclusionsHPV screening with triage of HPV-positive women by HPV16/18 genotyping and cytology provided a good equilibrium between screening effectiveness, the number of cytology tests required, and referral rates; HPV testing was similar in sensitivity to cotesting and safer than cytology, thus especially suitable for large population-based screening programs.