Liquid-based Cytology Triage Research Articles

Comparison of cervical cancer screening models based on Pap and HPV tests in Tbilisi, Georgia.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of human papillomavirus HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage as a primary screening method for cervical cancer compared to conventional Pap test in women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening in Tbilisi. Cross-sectional, prospective study was conducted, where 1,000 enrolled women aged 30-60 years during one visit underwent conventional Pap smear and Hr-HPV testing (Roche Cobas system). Women with any positive screening results were referred for further evaluation and remaining cells from the Cell Collection Medium vial were used for LBC. The study calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for each screening method and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve to evaluate the accuracy of each diagnostic method in identifying people with CIN2+ diseases. The HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage demonstrated higher sensitivity (76.9%), specificity (71.6%), and PPV (34.5%) compared to conventional Pap tests (p < 0.05). NPV was also high with the HPV test (94.1%). The HPV test alone had the highest sensitivity (92.3%) and NPV (96.7%), but lower specificity (41.4%) and PPV (22.6%) than the HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage (p < 0.05). Comparing the areas under the curve (AUCs), only the HPV with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage showed a statistically significant difference when compared to conventional Pap (0.71 vs. 0.55, p = 0.03) and high figures of AUC 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58-0.85) suggesting that HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage is a more reliable screening method for detecting CIN2+ disease and preventing cervical cancer, than other screening modality. The results suggest that the HPV test with HPV16/18 genotyping and LBC triage is a more effective primary screening method compared to conventional Pap tests. This information should be the basis for transition from cytological screening to HPV testing in Georgia.

Age-specific performance of human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA assay versus cytology for primary cervical cancer screening and triage: community-based screening in China.

In the general population, primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is advocated for cervical cancer (CC) screening. HPV E6/E7 mRNA (Aptima HPV, AHPV) assays have garnered considerable traction due to their higher specificity when compared with HPV DNA assays. Here, we investigated age-specific primary AHPV screening assays and different triage strategies versus cytology to identify the best approach. Between April 2018 and December 2021, we recruited female participants from 34 communities across Liaoning province and Qingdao City, China. Primary cervical screening protocols included liquid-based cytology (LBC) and AHPV assays, with females positive for any assays undergoing colposcopy. Genotyping (AHPV-GT) was conducted on all HPV-positive samples. Our primary outcomes were the identification of age-specific detection rates, colposcopy referral rates, and sensitivity and specificity values for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+). AHPV and different triage strategy performances were also examined across different age cohorts. Our investigation included 9911 eligible females. Age-specific abnormal cytology rates were in the 6.1%-8.0% range, and were highest in 45-54-year olds. When compared with 35-44-or 45-54-year olds, HPV prevalence was highest in 55-64-year olds (12.2% or 11.6% vs.14.1%, P = 0.048 and P = 0.002, respectively). In 35-44-year olds, AHPV sensitivity for detecting HSIL+ was 96.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 89.7-100) - significantly higher than LBC sensitivity (65.5 [95% CI: 48.3-82.8], P < 0.001). When compared with LBC, HSIL+ detection rates by AHPV-GT using reflex LBC triage increased by 31.5% (9.6‰ vs. 7.3‰), and colposcopy referral rates decreased by 16.4% (5.1% vs. 6.1%). In 45-54-year olds, HSIL+ detection rates for AHPV-GT using reflex LBC triage were lower than LBC rates (6.2‰ vs. 6.6‰). In 55-64-year olds, AHPV sensitivity (97.2 [95% CI: 91.7-100.0]) was higher than LBC sensitivity (66.7 [95% CI: 50.0-80.6], P = 0.003). The area under the curve (AUC) value was not significantly different between AHPV-GT with reflex LBC triage and LBC (0.845 [95% CI: 0.771-0.920] vs. 0.812 [95% CI: 0.734-0.891], P = 0.236). Primary AHPV screening using different triage strategies were different across different age cohorts. Thus, AHPV may be an appropriate primary screening method for 35-44 and 55-64 year old females, while AHPV-GT with reflex LBC triage may be more apt for 35-44 year old females.

Performance of human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA assay for primary cervical cancer screening and triage: Population-based screening in China.

ObjectiveCervical cancer screening is very important in the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer. In China, the cervical screening strategy needs to be improved. To explore a suitable cervical screening strategy in China, we evaluated the performance of the human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 mRNA (Aptima HPV (AHPV)) assay in primary screening and different triage strategies for women undergoing routine cervical screening.MethodsA total of 10,002 women aged 35 to 65 years of age were recruited in Liaoning Province and Qingdao City, China. Specimens were tested by liquid-based cytology (LBC) and the AHPV assay, and women who tested positive on any test were referred for colposcopy. Genotyping was performed on all high-risk HPV (HR-HPV)-positive samples. Test characteristics were calculated based on histological review.ResultsWe identified 109 women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+), including six with cervical cancer. The sensitivity of AHPV was clearly higher than that of LBC (92.7 [95% CI: 87.2, 97.2] vs. 67.9 [95% CI: 59.6, 76.1], p < 0.001). The specificity of AHPV was 93.0 (95% CI: 92.5, 93.5), which was lower than that of LBC (95.2 [95% CI: 94.8, 95.6], p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the positive predictive value of AHPV and LBC (13.5 [95% CI: 11.2, 16.2] vs. 14.3 [95% CI: 11.4, 17.6], p = 0.695). The difference of area under the curve (AUC) values between the AHPV test (0.928 [95% CI: 0.904, 0.953]) and LBC test (0.815 [95% CI: 0.771, 0.860]) in detecting HSIL+ was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Finally, among the three triage strategies, both the sensitivity (73.4 [95% CI: 65.1, 81.7]) and AUC (0.851 [95% CI: 0.809, 0.892]) of AHPV genotyping with reflex LBC triage were the greatest.ConclusionIn summary, the AHPV assay is both specific and sensitive for detecting HSIL+ and may be suitable for use in primary cervical cancer screening in China. AHPV genotyping with reflex LBC triage may be a feasible triage strategy.

Cervical cell lift: A novel triage method for the spatial mapping and grading of precancerous cervical lesions.

SummaryBackgroundPrimary HPV screening, due to its low specificity, requires an additional liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage test. However, even with LBC triage there has been a near doubling in the number of patients referred for colposcopy in recent years, the majority having low-grade disease.MethodsTo counter this, a triage test that generates a spatial map of the cervical surface at a molecular level has been developed which removes the subjectivity associated with LBC by facilitating identification of lesions in their entirety. 50 patients attending colposcopy were recruited to participate in a pilot study to evaluate the test. For each patient, cells were lifted from the cervix onto a membrane (cervical cell lift, CCL) and immunostained with a biomarker of precancerous cells, generating molecular maps of the cervical surface. These maps were analysed to detect high-grade lesions, and the results compared to the final histological diagnosis.FindingsWe demonstrated that spatial molecular mapping of the cervix has a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI 69-98) (positive predictive value 81% (95% CI 60-92)) for the detection of high-grade disease, and that AI-based analysis could aid disease detection through automated flagging of biomarker-positive cells.InterpretationSpatial molecular mapping of the CCL improved the rate of detection of high-grade disease in comparison to LBC, suggesting that this method has the potential to decisively identify patients with clinically relevant disease that requires excisional treatment.FundingCRUK Early Detection Project award, Jordan-Singer BSCCP award, Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust, UK-MRC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals/Advanced Sterilisation Products, and NWO.

Evaluation of triage strategies for high-risk human papillomavirus-positive women in cervical cancer screening: A multicenter randomized controlled trial in different resource settings in China.

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different triage strategies for high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-positive women in primary healthcare settings in China. This study was undertaken in 11 rural and 9 urban sites. Women aged 35-64 years old were enrolled. HrHPV-positive women were randomly allocated to liquid-based cytology (LBC), visual inspection with acetic acid and Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI) (rural only) triage, or directly referred to colposcopy (direct COLP). At 24 months, hrHPV testing, LBC and VIA/VILI were conducted for combined screening. In rural sites, 1,949 hrHPV-positive women were analyzed. A total of 852, 218 and 480 women were randomly assigned to direct COLP, LBC and VIA/VILI. At baseline, colposcopy referral rates of LBC or VIA/VILI triage could be reduced by 70%-80%. LBC (n=3 and n=7) or VIA/VILI (n=8 and n=26) could significantly decrease the number of colposcopies needed to detect one cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse and CIN3+ compared with direct COLP (n=14 and n=23). For the 24-month cumulative detection rate of CIN2+, VIA/VILI triage was 0.50-fold compared with LBC triage and 0.46-fold with the direct COLP. When stratified by age, baseline LBC triage+ performed best (P<0.001), peaking among women aged 35-44 years (Ptrend=0.002). In urban sites, 1,728 women were hrHPV genotyping test positive. A total of 408, 571 and 568 women were randomly assigned to direct COLP for HPV16/18+, direct COLP for other hrHPV subtypes+, and LBC triage for other hrHPV subtypes+. LBC (n=12 and n=31) significantly decreased the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+ and CIN3+ compared with direct COLP (n=14 and n=44). HPV16/18+ increased the 24-month cumulative detection rate of CIN2+ (17.89%, P<0.001). LBC triage for hrHPV-positive women in rural settings and direct COLP for HPV16/18+ women and LBC triage for other hrHPV subtype+ women in urban settings might be feasible strategies.

Modeling Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies With Varying Levels of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

Cervical cancer screening is a lifesaving intervention, with an array of approaches, including liquid-based cytology (LBC), molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and combinations via parallel cotesting or sequential triage. Maximizing screening efficacy while minimizing overtreatment is vital, especially when considering how the HPV vaccine will affect the interpretation of results. To estimate the likely outcomes of different screening modalities and to model how the increasing uptake of the HPV vaccine could affect the interpretation of screening results. This decision analytic model established a simple Markov model to compare the outcomes of different cervical cancer screening modalities on a simulated population of women (aged ≥25 years), considering different levels of HPV vaccination. The number of cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 and 3 detected and missed, the number of false positives, and the number of tests required to achieve a given level of accuracy. Positive and negative predictive values of different modalities were simulated under varying levels of HPV vaccination and therefore HPV prevalence. In a simulated population of 1000 women aged 25 years and older with an HPV prevalence of 2%, HPV-based modalities outperformed LBC-based approaches, detecting 19% more true positives (HPV test sensitivity, 89.9% [95% CI, 88.6%-91.1%]; LBC test sensitivity, 75.5% [95% CI, 66.6%-82.7%]). While cotesting markedly reduced missed cases, detecting 29% more true positives than LBC alone (19.5 [95% CI, 19.3-19.7] per 1000 women screened vs 15.1 [95% CI, 13.3-16.5] per 1000 women screened), it unacceptably increased excess colposcopy referral by 94% (184.4 [95% CI, 181.8-188.0] false positives per 1000 women screened vs 95.1 [95% CI, 93.1-97.0] false positives per 1000 women screened). By contrast, triage testing with reflex screening substantially reduced false positives by a factor of approximately 10 (eg, HPV with LBC triage, 9.6 [95% CI, 9.3-10.0] per 1000 women screened). Over a lifetime of screening, reflex approaches with appropriate test intervals maximized therapeutic efficacy; as HPV vaccination rates increased, HPV-based screening approaches resulted in fewer unnecessary colposcopies than LBC approaches (HPV testing, 80% vaccine coverage: 44.1 [95% CI, 40-45.9] excess colposcopies; LBC testing, 80% vaccine coverage: 96.9 [95% CI, 96.8-97.0] excess colposcopies). In this decision analytic model, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening was dependent on the prevalence of cervical dysplasia and/or HPV infection or vaccination in a population as well as the sensitivity and specificity of various modalities. Although screening is lifesaving, overtesting or modalities inappropriate to the target population may cause significant harm, including overtreatment.

HrHPV testing vs liquid-based cytology in cervical cancer screening among women aged 50 and older: a prospective study

IntroductionEvidence supports high-risk human papilloma virus (HPV) testing as the primary cervical cancer screening tool. However, benefits and harms should be carefully considered before replacing liquid-based cytology. In women age...

Cost-Effectiveness of Primary HPV Screening Strategies and Triage With Cytology or Dual Stain for Cervical Cancer

To identify the optimal cost-effective strategy for cervical cancer screening program in Thailand by comparing the different algorithms which based on the use of primary human papilloma virus (HPV) assay. We use a Microsoft Excel–based spreadsheet to calculate the accumulated cases of preinvasive and invasive cervical cancer and the budget impact of each screening program. The model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of 3 screening strategies: pooled HPV test with reflex liquid-based cytology triage, HPV genotyping with reflex p16/ki67 dual stain cytology, and pooled HPV test with dual stain. The main outcomes were the total cost, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Strategy entailing primary HPV genotyping and reflex dual stain cytology is the least costly strategy (total cost US$37 893 407) and provides the similar QALY gained compared to pooled high-risk HPV testing with reflex dual stain (Average QALY 24.03). Pooled HPV test with reflex dual staining is more costly compared to strategy without reflex dual staining. The ICER was US$353.40 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model is sensitive to the cost of dual stain and the cost of cancer treatment. Decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer case and increasing the QALYs can be successful by using dual stain cytology as the triage test for pooled HPV test or HPV genotyping. The result of our analysis favors the use of HPV genotyping with the reflex dual stain as it offers the most QALY at the lowest cost.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and mRNA primary cervical cancer screening: Evaluation and triaging options for HPV-positive women.

Objective Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in Thai women; human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause. This study aimed to determine the clinical performance of HPV mRNA compared with HPV DNA testing. Methods Cervical specimens were collected from women aged 35 to 60 who attended the routine organized screening programme. We compared accuracy parameters of standalone HPV mRNA and HPV DNA tests, and those of triaging with liquid-based cytology or HPV genotyping and liquid-based cytology for those positive only for the less oncogenic HPV types. Test accuracy parameters were estimated using latent class analysis using Bayesian models. Results Of the 5046 women enrolled, 174 (3.4%) were HPV DNA positive and 141 (2.8%) HPV mRNA positive. Colposcopy compliance was 95.4% ( n = 166) among HPV DNA-positive women and 94.3% ( n = 133) among those HPV mRNA positive. The estimated sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for detection of CIN2 or worse were 67.4%, 97.1%, 12.1% for HPV DNA testing, and 73.1%, 97.8%, 16.3% for HPV mRNA testing. These estimates for triaging of HPV DNA-positive women with liquid-based cytology were 64.4%, 98.8%, and 19.0%, respectively, and slightly better for liquid-based cytology triage of HPV mRNA-positive women, at 71.8%, 98.9%, and 22.1%. Conclusion A triaging strategy based on HPV genotyping and liquid-based cytology for those positive only for the less oncogenic HPV types had test characteristics comparable with that of liquid-based cytology triage. The HPV mRNA detection-based strategies had non-significant advantages over the HPV DNA detection-based strategies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in urban China

Objective: To explore the most economically feasible cervical cancer screening strategies in urban China. Methods: A series of Markov models were constructed to evaluate health and economic outcomes of different screening strategies. There were 24 screening strategies including four screening methods: liquid-based cytology (LBC), human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA genotyping, HPV DNA genotyping with LBC triage (HPV DNA+ LBC), HPV DNA genotyping and LBC co-testing (HPV DNA-LBC), along with three intervals (every 1, 3 or 5 years) and two starting age for screening (30 or 35 years old) were compared. Models parameters were obtained from a cervical cancer screening study in urban China and literature reviews. Results: The cumulative incidence and mortality risk of cervical cancer declined over 69% and 82% respectively for each screening strategy as compared with the no screening scenario. LBC every five years starting from 35 years old strategy cost the least (RMB 690 per capita) and could save life years compared with no screening. The cost effectiveness ratios of 24 strategies ranged from -10 903 to 117 992 RMB per life year saved. All strategies were cost-effective compared to no screening. In the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, LBC every 5 years starting from 30 strategy, HPV DNA genotyping every 3 years starting from 30 strategy, LBC every 3 years starting from 30 strategy and LBC every year starting from 30 strategy were dominant strategies. Conclusions: Screening can effectively prevent cervical cancer. In urban Chinese areas with insufficient socioeconomic resources, LBC every 5 years from 35 years old strategy is recommended. In relatively more affluent areas, LBC every 5 years from 30 years old strategy, LBC every 3 years from 30 years old strategy, HPV DNA genotyping every 3 years from 30 years old strategy, and LBC every year from 30 years old strategy are recommended successively.

Cervical screening with primary HPV testing or cytology in a population of women in which those aged 33 years or younger had previously been offered HPV vaccination: Results of the Compass pilot randomised trial.

BackgroundUsing primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions and invasive cancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ [CIN2+]) compared to cytology, but no evaluation has been conducted in a population previously offered HPV vaccination. We aimed to assess colposcopy referral and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia’s HPV-vaccinated population (by 2014, resident women ≤33 years had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination, with 3-dose uptake across age cohorts being about 50%–77%).Methods and findingsCompass is an open-label randomised trial of 5-yearly HPV screening versus 2.5-yearly liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening. In the first phase, consenting women aged 25–64 years presenting for routine screening at 47 primary practices in Victoria, Australia, provided a cervical sample and were randomised at a central laboratory at a 1:2:2 allocation to (i) image-read LBC screening with HPV triage of low-grade cytology (‘LBC screening’), (ii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with LBC triage for other oncogenic (OHR) types (‘HPV+LBC triage’), or (iii) HPV screening with those HPV16/18 positive referred to colposcopy and with dual-stained cytology triage for OHR types (‘HPV+DS triage’). A total of 5,006 eligible women were recruited from 29 October 2013 to 7 November 2014 (recruitment rate 58%); of these, 22% were in the group age-eligible for vaccination. Data on 4,995 participants were analysed after 11 withdrawals; 998 were assigned to, and 995 analysed (99.7%) in, the LBC-screened group; 1,996 assigned to and 1,992 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+LBC triage group; and 2,012 assigned to and 2,008 analysed (99.8%) in the HPV+DS triage group. No serious trial-related adverse events were reported. The main outcomes were colposcopy referral and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgroup of triage-negative women in each arm referred to 12 months of surveillance, and after a further 6 months of follow-up for histological outcomes (dataset closed 31 August 2016). Analysis was adjusted for whether women had been age-eligible for HPV vaccination or not. For the LBC-screened group, the overall referral and detected CIN2+ rates were 27/995 (2.7% [95% CI 1.8%–3.9%]) and 1/995 (0.1% [95% CI 0.0%–0.6%]), respectively; for HPV+LBC triage, these were 75/1,992 (3.8% [95% CI 3.0%–4.7%]) and 20/1,992 (1.0% [95% CI 0.6%–1.5%]); and for HPV+DS triage, these were 79/2,008 (3.9% [95% CI 3.1%–4.9%]) and 24/2,008 (1.2% [95% CI 0.8%–1.6%]) (p = 0.09 for difference in referral rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women; p = 0.003 for difference in CIN2+ detection rate in LBC versus all HPV-screened women, with p = 0.62 between HPV screening groups). Limitations include that the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated population, that individual women’s vaccination status was unknown, and that long-term follow-up data on disease detection in screen-negative women are not yet available.ConclusionsIn this study, primary HPV screening was associated with significantly increased detection of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions compared to cytology, in a population where high vaccine uptake was reported in women aged 33 years or younger who were offered vaccination. It had been predicted that increased disease detection might be associated with a transient increase in colposcopy referral rates in the first round of HPV screening, possibly dampened by HPV vaccine effect; in this study, although the point estimates for referral rates in women in each HPV-screened group were 41%–44% higher than in cytology-screened women, the difference in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant. These findings provide initial support for the implementation of primary HPV screening in vaccinated populations.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001207707

OP67 Cost-Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus-based Primary Cervical Screening In Ireland

INTRODUCTION:The cost-effectiveness of Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based primary cervical screening in the Irish healthcare setting is assessed using a decision-analysis approach to inform a decision around changes to the national screening program. Current practices comprises primary screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) followed by HPV triage, at 3-yearly intervals for ages 25 to 45 years and 5-yearly until age 60 years.METHODS:This study assessed changing the primary screening test from LBC to HPV testing, in both an unvaccinated and a vaccinated (against HPV 16/18) cohort. It considered extending the screening interval (to 5-yearly for all), the upper age limit (from 60 to 65 years) and different test sequences (four possible tests were included: HPV, LBC, partial genotyping for HPV16 or HPV 18 and the molecular biomarker p16INK4a/Ki67). A Markov-model for HPV-infection and cervical cancer was developed based on a German cervical screening model (1). The perspective of the healthcare system was adopted and a 5 percent discount rate used.RESULTS:Strategies using HPV as the primary screening test are more effective than LBC-based strategies. The optimal strategy, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR45,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for the unvaccinated cohort was HPV-based primary screening with a LBC triage test, at five-yearly intervals from age 25 to 60 years. This strategy is cost saving compared with current practice and cost effective when compared to no screening, with an Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR18,164 per QALY. The optimal strategy for the vaccinated cohort was also HPV primary screening with a LBC triage test, at five-yearly intervals from age 25 to 60 years. While more effective and cost saving compared with current practice, it would not be considered cost effective compared with no screening (ICER of EUR58,745/QALY).CONCLUSIONS:Based on our analyses, HPV-based cervical screening is more effective and cost saving compared with LBC-based screening for both vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts in an Irish setting.

Comparative accuracy of Pap smear and HPV screening in Ubon Ratchathani in Thailand

We evaluate the potential for using high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) testing-based screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in routine health services in Thailand; its accuracy in comparison to that of conventional cytology (CC); and the utility of HPV16/18 positive results and liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage for HPV-positive women in the detection of high-grade CIN. Women aged 30–60 years in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand were screened with CC and hr-HPV testing and those abnormal on either tests were referred for colposcopy and/or directed biopsies. The final diagnosis using COBAS was based on histology or colposcopy when histology was not available. Estimation of test accuracy parameters was done using latent class analysis using Bayesian models. Of the 5004 women were enrolled, 20 (0.4%) had abnormal CC and 174 (3.5%) women were HPV-positive. Among 185 women abnormal on CC or HPV-positive, 176 (95.1%) underwent colposcopy, of whom 101 (57.4%) had abnormal colposcopy findings. Ninety-seven women with abnormal and 69 with normal colposcopy had biopsies performed. All 21 women with histological CIN2 or worse had hr-HPV and none were abnormal on CC. The estimated sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value were respectively 71.8%, 97.0% and 13.0% of HPV testing; 53%, 98.7% and 20.3% for triage of HPV-positive women with LBC; and 70.4%, 98.2% and 16.9% when test positivity was taken as HPV16/18 irrespective of LBC result or positive for hr-HPV non 16/18 types and LBC triage. Our study findings indicate poor performance of cytology screening and demonstrate the potential and utility of using HPV testing in public health services in Thailand as well as the utility of primary HPV testing and LBC triage in screening for cervical neoplasia.

Primary cervical cancer screening with HPV testing compared with liquid-based cytology: results of round 1 of a randomised controlled trial – the HPV FOCAL Study

Background:Round 1 data of human papillomavirus (HPV) FOCAL, a three-arm, randomised trial, which aims to establish the efficacy of HPV DNA testing as a primary screen for cervical cancer, are presented.Methods:The three arms are: Control arm – liquid based cytology with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance (ASC-US) triage with hrHPV testing; Intervention Arm – hrHPV at entry with liquid-based cytology (LBC) triage of hrHPV positives, with exit screen at 4 years; Safety check arm – hrHPV at entry with LBC triage of hrHPV positives with exit screen at 2 years.Results:A total of 6154 women were randomised to the control arm and 12 494 to the HPV arms (intervention and safety check). In the HPV arm, the baseline cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ and CIN3+ rate was 9.2/1000 (95%CI; 7.4, 10.9) and 4.8/1000 (95%CI; 3.6, 6.1), which increased to 16.1/1000 (95%CI 13.2, 18.9) for CIN2+ and to 8.0/1000 (95%CI; 5.9, 10.0) for CIN3+ after subsequent screening of HPV-DNA-positive/cytology-negative women. Detection rate in the control arm remained unchanged after subsequent screening of ASC-US-positive/hrHPV DNA-negative women at 11.0/1000 for CIN2+ and 5.0/1000 for CIN3+.Conclusion:After subsequent screening of women who were either hrHPV positive/cytology negative or ASC-US positive/HPV negative, women randomised to the HPV arms had increased CIN2+ detection compared with women randomised to the cytology arm.

Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening

Objective Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 genotypes, which are known to cause approximately 65–70% of invasive cervical cancer cases, may allow clinicians to identify women at highest risk for underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia missed by Pap cytology. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding HPV-16 and 18 genotype triage to current cervical cancer screening strategies in the United States. Methods We developed a lifetime Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the following cervical cancer screening algorithms: (1) liquid-based cytology (LBC), (2) LBC + HPV triage, (3) HPV + LBC triage, (4) co-screening, (5) co-screening + HPV genotyping, and (6) HPV only + HPV genotyping. Costs were estimated from a payer perspective in 2007 U.S. dollars. Outcome measures included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, quality-adjusted life years saved (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results In our model, the use of HPV genotyping strategies prevented 51–73 deaths per 100,000 women screened compared to screening using LBC followed by HPV triage and 4–26 deaths compared to co-screening with LBC and high-risk HPV. Use of HPV genotyping to triage all high-risk HPV-positive women every three years had an ICER of $34,074 per QALY compared to HPV and LBC co-screening. HPV genotyping with co-screening was the most effective strategy and had an ICER of $33,807 per QALY compared to HPV genotyping for all high-risk HPV-positive women. Conclusion The addition of HPV-16 and -18 genotype triage to HPV and LBC co-screening was a cost-effective screening strategy in the United States.

A study of cervical cancer screening algorithms

To assess the feasibility and accuracy of different cervical cancer screening algorithms suitable for different regions, and promote the prevention and control of cervical cancer in China. Using the data of a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Xiangyuan County, Shanxi Province, conducted in 1999, to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of different cervical cancer screening algorithms. All the women were screened by six screening tests, including liquid based cytology (LBC), fluorescence spectroscopy, visual inspection with 5% acetic acid staining (VIA), colposcopy, self-sampled HPV DNA and clinician-sampled HPV DNA test, and each woman had histopathological diagnosis. Different screening algorithms were developed by combining the screening tests in parallel or in serial, and the performance indexes of the algorithms such as sensitivity, specificity, colposcopy referral rate and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for detecting the high grade lesions (>or= CIN 2) were compared. Among the algorithms combined by LBC and HPV DNA testing, for the combination in parallel (either cytology was greater than ASC-US or HPV positives), its sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 68.6%, and colposcopy referral rate was 34.4%; for the algorithm of LBC as primary screening test, with ASC-US women triage by HPV DNA testing, its sensitivity was 93.0%, specificity was 89.9%, and colposcopy referral rate was 13.7%; for the algorithm of HPV DNA testing as the primary screening test, with HPV positive women triage by LBC, its sensitivity was 91.7%, specificity was 93.0%, and colposcopy referral rate was 10.6%. ROC analysis showed that LBC primary testing followed by HPV triage and HPV primary testing followed by LBC triage were much better than the combination in parallel (P = 0.0003, P = 0.0002). Among the algorithms with LBC or HPV DNA testing solely as primary screening test, the sensitivity, specificity and colposcopy referral rate of LBC were 94.2%, 77.3%, 25.7% and 87.2%, 93.5%, 10.0%, respectively, for cutoff by ASC-US or by LSIL; the sensitivity, specificity and colposcopy referral rate of HPV DNA testing were 97.6%, 84.8%, 18.8% and 83.5%, 85.9%, 17.1%, respectively, for clinician-sampled and self-sampled. Clinician-sampled HPV DNA testing was better than LBC cutoff by ASC-US or self-sampled HPV DNA testing (P = 0.005, P = 0.002). Among the algorithms combined by VIA and HPV DNA testing, the sensitivity, specificity and colposcopy referral rate were 70.9%, 74.3% and 27.6% for VIA alone as primary screening test; the sensitivity, specificity and colposcopy referral rate were 65.9%, 95.2% and 7.4% for HPV as primary screening test with HPV positive women triage by VIA. HPV primary testing followed by VIA triage was better than VIA alone (P = 0.004). Considering the health-resource settings and women's preference, both HPV primary testing followed by LBC triage and LBC primary testing followed by HPV triage are suitable for developed regions, moderately developed regions may choose either LBC or HPV as the screening approach, VIA is a suitable primary screening test in less developed regions, and HPV primary testing followed by VIA triage will be more effective if low cost HPV test is available in the future.

A randomized controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervicalcancer screening: trial design and preliminary results (HPV FOCAL Trial)

BackgroundIn the HPV FOCAL trial, we will establish the efficacy of hr-HPV DNA testing as a stand-alone screening test followed by liquid based cytology (LBC) triage of hr-HPV-positive women compared to LBC followed by hr-HPV triage with ≥ CIN3 as the outcome.Methods/DesignHPV-FOCAL is a randomized, controlled, three-armed study over a four year period conducted in British Columbia. It will recruit 33,000 women aged 25-65 through the province's population based cervical cancer screening program. Control arm: LBC at entry and two years, and combined LBC and hr-HPV at four years among those with initial negative results and hr-HPV triage of ASCUS cases; Two Year Safety Check arm: hr-HPV at entry and LBC at two years in those with initial negative results with LBC triage of hr-HPV positives; Four Year Intervention Arm: hr-HPV at entry and combined hr-HPV and LBC at four years among those with initial negative results with LBC triage of hr-HPV positive casesDiscussionTo date, 6150 participants have a completed sample and epidemiologic questionnaire. Of the 2019 women enrolled in the control arm, 1908 (94.5%) were cytology negative. Women aged 25-29 had the highest rates of HSIL (1.4%). In the safety arm 92.2% of women were hr-HPV negative, with the highest rate of hr-HPV positivity found in 25-29 year old women (23.5%). Similar results were obtained in the intervention arm HPV FOCAL is the first randomized trial in North America to examine hr-HPV testing as the primary screen for cervical cancer within a population-based cervical cancer screening program.Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register, ISRCTN79347302

ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening

Primary cervical screening uses cytology to detect cancer precursor lesions [cervical intraepithelial neoplasia stage 3 or beyond (CIN3+)]. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing could add sensitivity as an adjunct to cytology or as a first test, reserving cytology for HPV-positive women. This study addresses the questions: Does the combination of cytology and HPV testing achieve a reduction in incident CIN3+?; Is HPV testing cost-effective in primary cervical screening?; Is its use associated with adverse psychosocial or psychosexual effects?; and How would it perform as an initial screening test followed by cytology for HPV positivity? ARTISTIC was a randomised trial of cervical cytology versus cervical cytology plus HPV testing, evaluated over two screening rounds, 3 years apart. Round 1 would detect prevalent disease and round 2 a combination of incident and undetected disease from round 1. Women undergoing routine cervical screening in the NHS programme in Greater Manchester. In total 24,510 women aged 20-64 years were enrolled between July 2001 and September 2003. HPV testing was performed on the liquid-based cytology (LBC) sample obtained at screening. Women were randomised in a ratio of 3:1 to have the HPV test result revealed and acted upon if persistently positive in cytology-negative cases or concealed. A detailed health economic evaluation and a psychosocial and psychosexual assessment were also performed. The primary outcome was CIN3+ in round 2. Secondary outcomes included an economic assessment and psychosocial effects. A large HPV genotyping study was also conducted. In round 1 there were 313 CIN3+ lesions, representing a prevalence in the revealed and concealed arms of 1.27% and 1.31% respectively (p = 0.81). Round 2 (30-48 months) involved 14,230 (58.1%) of the women screened in round 1 and only 31 CIN3+ were detected; the CIN3 rate was not significantly different between the revealed and concealed arms. A less restrictive definition of round 2 (26-54 months) increased CIN3+ to 45 and CIN3+ incidence in the arms was significantly different (p = 0.05). There was no difference in CIN3+ between the arms when rounds 1 and 2 were combined. Prevalence of high-risk HPV types was age-dependent. Overall prevalence of HPV16/18 increased with severity of dyskaryosis. Mean costs per woman in round 1 were 72 pounds and 56 pounds for the revealed and concealed arms (p < 0.001); an age-adjustment reduced these mean costs to 65 pounds and 52 pounds. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for detecting additional CIN3+ by adding HPV testing to LBC screening in round 1 was 38,771 pounds. Age-adjusted mean cost for LBC primary screening with HPV triage was 39 pounds compared with 48 pounds for HPV primary screening with LBC triage. HPV testing did not appear to cause significant psychosocial distress. Routine HPV testing did not add significantly to the effectiveness of LBC in this study. No significant adverse psychosocial effects were detected. It would not be cost-effective to screen with cytology and HPV combined but HPV testing, as either triage or initial test triaged by cytology, would be cheaper than cytology without HPV testing. LBC would not benefit from combination with HPV; it is highly effective as primary screening but HPV testing has twin advantages of high negative predictive value and automated platforms enabling high throughput. HPV primary screening would require major contraction and reconfiguration of laboratory services. Follow-up continues in ARTISTIC while maintaining concealment for a further 3-year round of screening, which will help in screening protocol development for the post-vaccination era.