Dataset Information

Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening and the cut-off level for hybrid capture 2 tests: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the trade-off between the sensitivity and the specificity for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at hybrid capture 2 cut-off values above the standard ≥ 1 relative light units/cut-off level (rlu/co).

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials in primary cervical screening using hybrid capture 2 testing in the intervention arms. Articles published until August 2010 were included if the numbers of women with positive test results and with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were stratified by hybrid capture 2 cut-off levels.

Participants

Women in the baseline screening rounds of the trials.

Interventions

Hybrid capture 2 screening in the baseline round including the diagnostic follow-up as practised in the randomised controlled trials and as reported by hybrid capture 2 cut-off values.

Results

Owing to heterogeneity in the trials, meta-analysis was not possible. Including cut-off values up to ≥ 10 rlu/co, 25 observation points were available for analysis. The relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III or higher at cut-off levels of ≥ 2, ≥ 4 or ≥ 5, and ≥ 10 rlu/co compared with a cut-off level of ≥ 1 rlu/co varied by trial, but at their lowest they were 0.97, 0.92, and 0.91, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II or higher. The specificity would increase by at least 1%, 2%, and 3%, respectively, so that up to 24%, 39%, and 53%, of positive hybrid capture 2 test results not associated with high grade neoplasia could be avoided. Only two outliers existed to this general pattern.

Conclusions

Although the data were derived from the baseline screening rounds only, the decrease in the sensitivity for high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia using a hybrid capture 2 cut-off level between ≥ 2 rlu/co and ≥ 10 rlu/co seemed acceptable given the international recommendations for testing for human papillomavirus DNA in cervical screening, which require 90% or more sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II or higher compared with hybrid capture 2 at ≥ 1 rlu/co. The data suggest that the hybrid capture 2 cut-off level could be increased in primary screening; this seems reasonably safe and is significantly less burdensome for women.

SUBMITTER: Rebolj M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3099543 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide the first report on the main outcomes from the prevalence and incidence rounds of a large pilot of routine primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in England, compared with contemporaneous primary liquid based cytology screening.DesignObservational study.SettingThe English Cervical Screening Programme.Participants578 547 women undergoing cervical screening in primary care between May 2013 and December 2014, with follow-up until May 2017; 183 970 (32%) were screened with hrHPV testing.InterventionsRoutine cervical screening with hrHPV testing with liquid based cytology triage and two early recalls for women who were hrHPV positive and cytology negative, following the national screening age and interval recommendations.Main outcome measuresFrequency of referral for a colposcopy; adherence to early recall; and relative detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse from hrHPV testing compared with liquid based cytology in two consecutive screening rounds.ResultsBaseline hrHPV testing and early recall required approximately 80% more colposcopies, (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 1.82), but detected substantially more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than liquid based cytology (1.49 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 1.43 to 1.55; 1.44 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, 1.36 to 1.51) and for cervical cancer (1.27, 0.99 to 1.63). Attendance at early recall and colposcopy referral were 80% and 95%, respectively. At the incidence screen, the 33 506 women screened with hrHPV testing had substantially less cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse than the 77 017 women screened with liquid based cytology (0.14, 0.09 to 0.23).ConclusionsIn England, routine primary hrHPV screening increased the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer by approximately 40% and 30%, respectively, compared with liquid based cytology. The very low incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse after three years supports extending the screening interval.

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay.DesignObservational study.SettingReal world data from the English HPV screening pilot's first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019).Participants1 341 584 women.InterventionsCervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities.Main outcome measuresDetection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test.ResultsFor women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50).ConclusionsThese data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trials in the research setting have demonstrated that primary human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening results in greater protection against cervical cancer compared with cytology, but evidence from real-life implementation was missing. To evaluate the effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening within a real-life screening program, the organized, population-based cervical screening program in the capital region of Sweden offered either HPV- or cytology-based screening in a randomized manner through a randomized healthcare policy (RHP).Methods and findingsA total of 395,725 women aged 30 to 64 years that were invited for their routine cervical screening visit were randomized without blinding to either cytology-based screening with HPV triage (n = 183,309) or HPV-based screening, with cytology triage (n = 212,416 women) between September 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016 and follow-up through June 30, 2017. The main outcome was non-inferior detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Secondary outcomes included superiority in CIN2+ detection, screening attendance, and referral to histology. In total, 120,240 had a cervical screening sample on record in the study period in the HPV arm and 99,340 in the cytology arm and were followed for the outcomes of interest. In per-protocol (PP) analyses, the detection rate of CIN2+ was 1.03% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.10) in the HPV arm and 0.93% (0.87 to 0.99) in the cytology arm (p for non-inferiority <0.0001; odds ratio (OR) 1.11 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.22)). There were 46 cervical cancers detected in the HPV arm (0.04% (0.03 to 0.06)) and 48 cancers detected in the cytology arm (0.05% (0.04 to 0.07)) (p for non-inferiority <0.0001; OR 0.79 (0.53 to 1.18)). Intention-to-screen (ITS) analyses found few differences. In the HPV arm, there was a modestly increased attendance after new invitations (68.56% (68.31 to 68.80) vs. 67.71% (67.43 to 67.98); OR 1.02 (1.00 to 1.03)) and increased rate of referral with completed biopsy (3.89% (3.79 to 4.00) vs. 3.53% (3.42 to 3.65); OR 1.10 (1.05 to 1.15)). The main limitations of this analysis are that only the baseline results are presented, and there was an imbalance in invitations between the study arms.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that a real-life RHP of primary HPV-based screening was acceptable and effective when evaluated against cytology-based screening, as indicated by comparable participation, referral, and detection rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01511328.