Search

Background Non-attenders for cervical screening are at increased risk of cervical cancer. Studies offering self-sampling for high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HrHPV) testing have shown greater uptake than sending another invitation for cytology. Objectives To explore whether uptake would increase in a less diverse, more stable population than the previous English study, which demonstrated a lower response rate than other studies. The primary objective was whether non-attenders were more likely to respond to a postal invitation, including kit, to collect a self-sample compared with a further invitation for cytology screening. The secondary objective was whether women with an abnormal result would attend for follow-up. Methods 6000 non-attenders for screening in this pragmatic, randomized (1:1) controlled trial in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were sent an HPV self-sample kit (intervention) or a further invitation for cytology screening (comparator). Results 411(13%) responded to the intervention, returning a self-sample (247(8%)) or attending for cytology (164(5%)), compared with 183(6%) attending for cytology, relative risk 2.25 (95% CI 1.90–2.65) (comparator arm). Of those testing hrHPV positive (32(13%)), 19(59%) subsequently attended cytology screening. Of those in the intervention group who attended for cytology screening without returning an hrHPV self-sample (n = 164), 5% (n = 8) were referred for colposcopy - all attended. In the comparator group eight of the nine referred for colposcopy attended. Conclusion Persistent non-responders to invitations for cervical screening are significantly more likely to respond to a postal invitation to return a self-collected sample for HPV testing than a further invitation for cytology screening. However, just over half followed up on this positive HPV result.

Infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) is recognized as one of the major causes of infection-related cancer worldwide, as well as the causal factor in other diseases. Strong evidence for a causal etiology with HPV has been stated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer for cancers of the cervix uteri, penis, vulva, vagina, anus and oropharynx (including base of the tongue and tonsils). Of the estimated 12.7 million new cancers occurring in 2008 worldwide, 4.8% were attributable to HPV infection, with substantially higher incidence and mortality rates seen in developing versus developed countries. In recent years, we have gained tremendous knowledge about HPVs and their interactions with host cells, tissues and the immune system; have validated and implemented strategies for safe and efficacious prophylactic vaccination against HPV infections; have developed increasingly sensitive and specific molecular diagnostic tools for HPV detection for use in cervical cancer screening; and have substantially increased global awareness of HPV and its many associated diseases in women, men, and children. While these achievements exemplify the success of biomedical research in generating important public health interventions, they also generate new and daunting challenges: costs of HPV prevention and medical care, the implementation of what is technically possible, socio-political resistance to prevention opportunities, and the very wide ranges of national economic capabilities and health care systems. Gains and challenges faced in the quest for comprehensive control of HPV infection and HPV-related cancers and other disease are summarized in this review. The information presented may be viewed in terms of a reframed paradigm of prevention of cervical cancer and other HPV-related diseases that will include strategic combinations of at least four major components: 1) routine introduction of HPV vaccines to women in all countries, 2) extension and simplification of existing screening programs using HPV-based technology, 3) extension of adapted screening programs to developing populations, and 4) consideration of the broader spectrum of cancers and other diseases preventable by HPV vaccination in women, as well as in men. Despite the huge advances already achieved, there must be ongoing efforts including international advocacy to achieve widespread-optimally universal-implementation of HPV prevention strategies in both developed and developing countries. This article summarizes information from the chapters presented in a special ICO Monograph 'Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases' Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012. Additional details on each subtopic and full information regarding the supporting literature references may be found in the original chapters. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA detection is generally accepted for the triage of women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). However, no consensus has been reached on the optimal management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL). METHODS In this meta-analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) detection of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) of 5 hrHPV types (the PreTect HPV-Proofer and NucliSENS EasyQ tests) for detecting grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3+ was assessed in women who had a diagnosis of ASC-US and LSIL. The results were compared with the Hybrid Capture-2 (HC2) assay, which detects the DNA of 13 hrHPV types. A bivariate random-effect model that incorporated the intrinsic correlation between the true-positive and false-positive rates was used for a pooled meta-analysis. RESULTS Considering underlying CIN2+, the pooled absolute sensitivity of the 10 included studies was 75.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.1%-82.7%) and 76.2% (95% CI, 68.3%-76.9%) for the triage of ASC-US and LSIL, respectively. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 77.9% (95% CI, 70.1%-85.7%) and 74.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-78.8%) in women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively. Five studies allowed direct comparison of the mRNA assays with HC2. Considering CIN2+ in women with ASC-US and LSIL, mRNA testing was substantially more specific than the HC2 assay (ratio: 1.98 and 3.36, respectively; P

ObjectiveWe evaluated baseline data from the PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults (PATRICIA; NCT00122681) on the association between behavioral risk factors and HPV infection and cervical abnormalities.MethodsWomen completed behavioral questionnaires at baseline. Prevalence of HPV infection and cervical abnormalities (detected by cytological or histological procedures) and association with behavioral risk factors were analyzed by univariate and stepwise multivariable logistic regressions.Results16782 women completed questionnaires. Among 16748 women with data for HPV infection, 4059 (24.2%) were infected with any HPV type. Among 16757 women with data for cytological abnormalities, 1626 (9.7%) had a cytological abnormality, of whom 1170 (72.0%) were infected with at least one oncogenic HPV type including HPV-16 (22.7%) and HPV-18 (9.3%). Multivariable analysis (adjusted for age and region, N=14404) showed a significant association between infection with any HPV type and not living with a partner, smoking, age

Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide and often affects women under 40 years with young families. Vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) is a major advance, since it offers primary prevention against the infectious agent that is the main cause of the disease. Two prophylactic vaccines have shown great promise in clinical trials. One of these (Gardasil(®)) contains all four HPV types, offering protection against genital warts (types 6 and 11) as well as cervical cancer (types 16 and 18). The other (Cervarix(®)) contains types 16 and 18, targeting cervical cancer alone, but also has a degree of cross-protection against types 31 and 45, which could significantly increase the level of protection. Adolescent girls remain the primary target of vaccination programmes, but the issues of vaccinating boys and older women are increasingly debated.

In the Phase III PATRICIA study (NCT00122681), the human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine (Cervarix(®), GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) was highly efficacious against HPV-16/18 infections and precancerous lesions in women HPV-16/18 deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) negative and seronegative at baseline. We present further data on vaccine efficacy (VE) against HPV-16/18 in the total vaccinated cohort including women who may have been exposed to HPV-16/18 infection before vaccination. In women with no evidence of current or previous HPV-16/18 infection (DNA negative and seronegative), VE was 90.3% (96.1% confidence interval: 87.3-92.6) against 6-month persistent infection (PI), 91.9% (84.6-96.2) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)1+ and 94.6% (86.3-98.4) against CIN2+ [97.7% (91.1-99.8) when using the HPV type assignment algorithm (TAA)]. In women HPV-16/18 DNA negative but with serological evidence of previous HPV-16/18 infection (seropositive), VE was 72.3% (53.0-84.5) against 6-month PI, 67.2% (10.9-89.9) against CIN1+, and 68.8% (-28.3-95.0) against CIN2+ [88.5% (10.8-99.8) when using TAA]. In women with no evidence of current HPV-16/18 infection (DNA negative), regardless of their baseline HPV-16/18 serological status, VE was 88.7% (85.7-91.1) against 6-month PI, 89.1% (81.6-94.0) against CIN1+ and 92.4% (84.0-97.0) against CIN2+ [97.0% (90.6-99.5) when using TAA]. In women who were DNA positive for one vaccine type, the vaccine was efficacious against the other vaccine type. The vaccine did not impact the outcome of HPV-16/18 infections present at the time of vaccination. Vaccination was generally well tolerated regardless of the woman's HPV-16/18 DNA or serological status at entry.

“…the prescribing of combined oral contraceptive pills to women with a body mass index >30 kg/m 2 , and particularly those with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease, is becoming difficult to justify. ” An increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was the first serious side effect identified with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) in the 1960s. This was quickly realised to be due to the estrogen content of the COC and this has been the main driver behind reductions in estrogen dose seen in the last 50 years [1]. However, in 1995, several studies were published that suggested that COCs containing the progestogens desogestrel and gestodene (‘third-generation’ COCs) increased the risk of VTE more than ‘second-generation’ COCs (containing levon orgestrel). This created a widespread pill-scare, which has never fully been resolved, despite the incongruity that progestogen-only contraceptives do not increase VTE risk and newer evidence showing that prescriber bias and many confounding factors were not taken into account [2].

The National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) has announced that from April 2011, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing will be incorporated into the national screening programme in England. Initially, HPV testing will be used for the triage of borderline and mildly dyskaryotic smears, but there are also plans, at a later date, for its use as a ‘test of cure’ following treatment for cervical abnormalities (Figure 1).1 It would have been interesting to see the data underpinning the proposals, but no references were given. Figure 1 National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) flow diagram of ‘HPV Triage and Test of Cure Protocol for Women Aged 25 to 64 Years’.1 Figure available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/hpv-triage-test-flowchart-v2.pdf.1 This flow diagram is reproduced with the kind permission of the NHSCSP. The announcement follows 8 years of pilot projects. The first pilots were completed in 20062 and were followed by the Sentinel Site Implementation Project, which was launched in January 2008, to examine the practical implementation of a national roll-out of HPV testing. A report from the latter does not appear to be publicly available, so it is not possible to tell whether the problems identified in the pilots have been overcome and, if so, how. It is thus impossible to judge the results of the changes. The majority of low-grade cytological abnormalities (at least 70%) will regress without treatment.3 If it was possible to identify those women whose abnormalities were very likely to regress, they could be spared the anxiety of repeat testing and …

Background: A randomised trial to ascertain whether women who do not attend for cervical screening are more likely to respond to the opportunity to collect a self-sample for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, or to a further invitation to attend for cervical screening. Methods: The study was carried out in a Primary Care Trust (PCT) in London between June 2009 and December 2009. In total, 3000 women were randomly selected from persistent non-responders (i.e., who had not responded to at least two invitations to attend for screening). The women were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to either receive an HPV self-sampling kit or a further invitation to attend for cervical cytology. The main outcome measures were (1) percentage of women attending for cervical cytology compared with those returning a self-sample HPV test or attending for cytology subsequent to receiving the kit and (2) percentage of those testing positive for HPV who attended further investigation. Results: The total response in the self-sampling group for screening was 10.2%. Of the 1500 women in the control group sent a further invitation for cervical screening, 4.5% attended for cytology screening. This difference is highly statistically significant (P

Since its introduction, there have been concerns regarding the psychological and psychosexual issues associated with cervical screening and the management of abnormal smears. We are now entering a new era in which vaccination against the main cause of cervical cancer, the human papillomavirus, has become possible, and testing for human papillomavirus is likely to become widespread in screening, triage of abnormal smears and the follow-up of women after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. It is important that the social and psychological implications of this are understood and that ways of overcoming personal and societal difficulties relating to these issues are found.

This document provides the consensus opinion from an international workshop regarding oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). It discusses the background and purpose of the workshop the benefits and risks of oral contraceptives describes the serious complication of VTE and assesses the VTE risks of new oral contraceptive products. It also includes information on recently published studies focused on oral contraceptives and VTE.

Background: Several studies have shown that testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types results in an improved sensitivity for CIN2+, compared with cytology, although with a somewhat lower specificity. Methods: We obtained follow-up results, with at least one smear after participation in the HART study, which compared HPV testing (HC-II) with cytology as a primary screening modality. Results: With a median follow-up of 6 years, 42 additional cases of CIN2+ were identified; women who were HPV positive at baseline were more likely to develop CIN2+ than those who were HPV negative (hazard ratio (HR) 17.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) (9.3–31.6)) and the risk increased with increasing viral load. Compared with HPV-negative women (relative light unit (RLU)

Cervical cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and is common in relatively young women. Cervical screening programs, while successful if properly carried out, are difficult and expensive to implement, and offer secondary, not primary prevention. Vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is the major cause of cervical cancer, is a significant step forward.The data on Cervarix, the GSK HPV vaccine, are reviewed and placed in the context of HPV vaccination as a whole. A literature review using PubMed listed publications and official product websites has been carried out.The reader will gain an understanding of the issues involved in HPV vaccination and of the data to date.Cervarix has been shown to have high efficacy against disease associated with both HPV-16 and HPV-18. Its antibody response profile allows for optimism regarding the duration of immunity. The fact that it is a virus-like particle, rather than a live-virus vaccine, is reassuring regarding safety, as are the reasonably extensive safety data for the vaccine preparation so far accrued. Cross protection against oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types, in particular HPV-45, may be important in the prevention of cervical adenocarcinoma, which is currently not well served by screening.

Summary Although we now have many contraceptives, couples still have a negative perception of their personal choices. Many know little about methods other than the combined pill and the condom, and in particular, knowledge of long-acting methods is very poor. Methods that are very safe, such as barriers and natural family planning, are unfortunately not very effective. Meanwhile, the very effective methods—the hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices (IUDs)—raise more concerns about health risks and side effects. A woman's choice of contraceptive will be influenced by many factors, and her requirements will change with time. As prescribers, it is our responsibility to ensure that couples are given sufficient and appropriate information to enable them to make decisions.

A variety of health professionals will be involved in dealing with issues surrounding human papillomavirus in the near future, but in many cases their own knowledge is insufficient to allow them to comfortably deal with patients’ concerns. Educational initiatives for health professionals are urgently needed. These must take into account attitudes, cultural issues and communication skills, as well as providing facts. The role of the media and advocacy groups should not be ignored.

Gardasil is a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer, cervical and vulvar dysplasia and external genital warts. In our New products review, Steve Chaplin presents the clinical data relating to its efficacy and Dr Anne Szarewski comments on the implications of the proposed immunisation programme. Copyright © 2007 Wiley Interface Ltd

We report final event-driven analysis data on the immunogenicity and efficacy of the human papillomavirus 16 and 18 ((HPV-16/18) AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in young women aged 15 to 25 years from the PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults (PATRICIA). The total vaccinated cohort (TVC) included all randomized participants who received at least one vaccine dose (vaccine, n = 9,319; control, n = 9,325) at months 0, 1, and/or 6. The TVC-naive (vaccine, n = 5,822; control, n = 5,819) had no evidence of high-risk HPV infection at baseline, approximating adolescent girls targeted by most HPV vaccination programs. Mean follow-up was approximately 39 months after the first vaccine dose in each cohort. At baseline, 26% of women in the TVC had evidence of past and/or current HPV-16/18 infection. HPV-16 and HPV-18 antibody titers postvaccination tended to be higher among 15- to 17-year-olds than among 18- to 25-year-olds. In the TVC, vaccine efficacy (VE) against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or greater (CIN1+), CIN2+, and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 55.5% (96.1% confidence interval [CI], 43.2, 65.3), 52.8% (37.5, 64.7), and 33.6% (−1.1, 56.9). VE against CIN1+, CIN2+, and CIN3+ irrespective of HPV DNA was 21.7% (10.7, 31.4), 30.4% (16.4, 42.1), and 33.4% (9.1, 51.5) and was consistently significant only in 15- to 17-year-old women (27.4% [10.8, 40.9], 41.8% [22.3, 56.7], and 55.8% [19.2, 76.9]). In the TVC-naive, VE against CIN1+, CIN2+, and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 96.5% (89.0, 99.4), 98.4% (90.4, 100), and 100% (64.7, 100), and irrespective of HPV DNA it was 50.1% (35.9, 61.4), 70.2% (54.7, 80.9), and 87.0% (54.9, 97.7). VE against 12-month persistent infection with HPV-16/18 was 89.9% (84.0, 94.0), and that against HPV-31/33/45/51 was 49.0% (34.7, 60.3). In conclusion, vaccinating adolescents before sexual debut has a substantial impact on the overall incidence of high-grade cervical abnormalities, and catch-up vaccination up to 18 years of age is most likely effective. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT001226810.)

Several studies suggest that HPV testing is more sensitive than cytology in primary cervical screening. These studies had different designs and were reported in different ways. Individual patient data were collected for all European and North American studies in which cytology was routinely performed and HPV testing was included as an additional parallel test. More than 60,000 women were included. The sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing were compared with routine cytology, both overall and for ages

Although adolescent girls are the main population for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, adult women who remain at risk of cervical cancer can also be vaccinated. We report data from the interim analysis of the ongoing VIVIANE study, the aim of which is to assess the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women.In this phase 3, multinational, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned healthy women older than 25 years to the HPV 16/18 vaccine or control (1:1), via an internet-based system with an algorithm process that accounted for region, age stratum, baseline HPV DNA status, HPV 16/18 serostatus, and cytology. Enrolment was age-stratified, with about 45% of participants in each of the 26-35 and 36-45 years age strata and 10% in the 46 years and older stratum. Up to 15% of women in each age stratum could have a history of HPV infection or disease. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or higher (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. The primary analysis was done in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, which consists of women who received all three vaccine or control doses, had negative or low-grade cytology at baseline, and had no history of HPV disease. Secondary analyses included vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types. Mean follow-up time was 40·3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294047.The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit for the present analysis took place on Dec 10, 2010; 5752 women were included in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2881 vaccine, n=2871 control), and 4505 in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2264 vaccine, n=2241 control). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ was significant in all age groups combined (81·1%, 97·7% CI 52·1-94·0), in the 26-35 years age group (83·5%, 45·0-96·8), and in the 36-45 years age group (77·2%, 2·8-96·9); no cases were seen in women aged 46 years and older. Vaccine efficacy against atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or greater associated with HPV 16/18 was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (79·1%, 97·7% CI 27·6-95·9) and HPV 45 (76·9%, 18·5-95·6]) Serious adverse events occurred in 285 (10%) of 2881 women in the vaccine group and 267 (9%) of 2871 in the control group; five (1%) and eight (1%) of these events, respectively, were believed to be related to vaccination.In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine is efficacious against infections and cervical abnormalities associated with the vaccine types, as well as infections with the non-vaccine HPV types 31 and 45.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

Objectives To explore the attitudes, views and understanding of women attending a Hindu temple in London, UK towards cervical screening, human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and two HPV self-sample collection devices: the Dacron swab and Evalyn® brush. Methods A mixed methods design comprising a survey and four focus groups was adopted. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and explored using thematic framework analysis. Results A total of 185 Hindu women completed surveys and 23 attended focus groups. Of the respondents 75% aged 25–64 years reported having cervical screening within the last 5 years; 85% had attended college or university. Familiar barriers to attendance for screening were identified: fear of pain and the test result, embarrassment, screener's attitude, inconvenient appointment times and difficulty with child care. Additional barriers cited included age and country of birth, with older and Indian-born women thought to be less likely to attend for screening. Self-collected sampling had a mixed reception. Women were not confident that their sample would be as good as a clinician sample and expressed concern about the impact that a positive HPV result might have on their relationships. Conclusions Screening attendance in this highly educated group of Hindu women was slightly lower than in the general population (75% of women aged 25–64 years had been screened in the last 5 years compared with 79% in England as a whole). Familiar barriers to screening were identified. Women felt able to collect their own sample for HPV testing with a Dacron swab but lacked confidence that it would be as good as that obtained by a clinician.

Objective To investigate the effects of stopping smoking on cervical Langerhans’ cells and lymphocytes. Design Prospective intervention study. Setting A large family planning clinic in central London. Population Women volunteers prepared to attempt to give up smoking for six months. Their most recent cervical smear showed no abnormality greater than mild dyskaryosis. Methods The women were seen at three-month intervals for six months. Reduction in smoking was assessed by self-reporting and validated by salivary cotinine concentrations. Colposcopy and a biopsy of a normal area were performed at the first and last visits. Any area of abnormality was also biopsied at the final visit. Langerhans’ cells and lymphocytes were counted. Main outcome measures Proportional changes in counts of Langerhans’ cells and lymphocytes with reduction in smoking. Results Reduction in smoking by 20 to 40 cigarettes per day was significantly associated with a reduction of between 6% and 16% in counts of Langerhans cells, CD8 and total lymphocytes. Heavy smoking was significantly associated (P= 0.02) with an increased chance of persistent human papillomavirus infection. The presence of candida was associated with significantly higher counts of between 41% and 47% in total lymphocytes and CD8 lymphocytes. In contrast, the presence of anaerobic vaginosis was associated with significantly lower counts of between 16% and 30% in Langerhans cells, CD4 and CD8 lymphocytes. Conclusions This large intervention study has demonstrated a clear relationship between reduction in smoking and changes in cervical immune cell counts. Future studies need to take into account cytokine interactions, which recent studies suggest may be significant in the immune response to both human papillomavirus and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and the ever-increasing complexity of the cell-mediated immune system of the cervix.

Injectable contraceptives are still a minority use method of contraception in this country. In women under the age of thirty the most commonly used method is the combined oral contraceptive pill. In 1995, three and a quarter million women were using the pill. Sterilisation of one or other partner is also common in this country, especially in couples where the woman is over thirty. Injectable progestogens may be the right choice of contraceptive for some patients, as Anne Szarewski explains.

Background HR HPV genotypes when assayed collectively, achieve high sensitivity but low specificity for the prediction of CIN2+. Knowledge of the specific genotypes in an infection may facilitate the use of HR HPV detection in routine clinical practice. Objectives To compare the rate of HR HPV detection and the accuracy of CIN2+ prediction between PapType test (Genera Biosystems) and other commercially available HR HPV assays, and to examine the value of full HPV genotyping. Study design PreservCyt samples from 1099 women referred for abnormal cervical cytology were used. CIN2+ was chosen as the primary end-point but CIN3+ was also evaluated. A hierarchy of HR HPV genotypes was created using PPV and this was used to create 3 groups of genotypes with potentially different management. Results The PapType assay has a specificity of 22.4% and a sensitivity of 94.6% for CIN2+ prediction. Classification into Groups A (HPV33 and HPV16, very highly predictive), B (HPV31, 18, 52, 35, 58, 51 highly predictive) and C (HPV68, 45, 39, 66, 56, 59, intermediate predictive) could double the specificity (44.5%) but only slightly reduce the sensitivity for CIN2+ (91.5%) and CIN3+ (94.0%). Conclusions The PapType assay is a simple, reproducible and effective test for HR HPV detection and genotyping. HPV 33 was found to have a very high PPV and should therefore be managed as for HPV16.

(See the major article by Howell-Jones et al on pages 1397–403.) The human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine (Cervarix®; GlaxoSmithKline Vaccines) has been demonstrated to have high efficacy against infection and both low- and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN; caused by oncogenic HPV types 16 and 18, with substantial cross protection against other high-risk HPV types 31, 33, 45, and 51 [1, 2]. Low-risk HPV types are found in approximately 12% of low-grade CIN, although there is likely to be coinfection with high-risk types [3]. While immunogenicity has been demonstrated in boys [4], the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine is not currently licensed for use in boys. Genital warts (GWs) are the most common viral sexually transmitted infection in the Western world, and a 30% increase in new diagnoses was seen in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2009 [5]. Treatment has a significant morbidity and can be frustrating, and recurrences are common. This causes psychosocial distress to patients and results in substantial financial costs [6, 7]. GWs result from persistent infection with low-risk HPV genotypes, predominantly 6 and 11, although other low-risk types were not evaluated in the former study [8, 9]. It has been suggested that a small proportion of GWs may be caused by HPV types 16 and 18; [10, 11] if true, limited efficacy against warts could occur with a vaccine directed against these types [10, 11]. The HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine was chosen for the UK national vaccination program, which commenced in September 2008 and has achieved >84% uptake in 12- to 15-year-old girls for all 3 doses. A catch-up program to the age of 18 years achieved between 50% and 70% uptake for all 3 doses [12]. Public Health England (formerly the Health Protection Agency), which monitors rates of sexually transmitted infections in England, has reported a decrease in new diagnoses of GWs in genitourinary medicine clinics among young women since 2008 [13]. By 2011, the overall reduction was 13.3% among 16- to 19-year-olds, with the greatest decline (20.8%) in 17-year-olds, for whom HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine coverage in 2011 was estimated at 64%. By contrast, rates in the older age groups were generally either static or increasing [14]. Among the potential reasons for this decrease, as discussed by Howell-Jones et al [14], is the possibility of an effect of the HPV-16/18 ASO4-adjuvanted vaccine on low-risk HPV types. A post hoc analysis of the PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults) trial was therefore performed to ascertain whether any protection against low-risk HPV types was apparent.

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA detection is generally accepted for the triage of women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US). However, no consensus has been reached on the optimal management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL).In this meta-analysis, the diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) detection of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) of 5 hrHPV types (the PreTect HPV-Proofer and NucliSENS EasyQ tests) for detecting grade 2 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3+ was assessed in women who had a diagnosis of ASC-US and LSIL. The results were compared with the Hybrid Capture-2 (HC2) assay, which detects the DNA of 13 hrHPV types. A bivariate random-effect model that incorporated the intrinsic correlation between the true-positive and false-positive rates was used for a pooled meta-analysis.Considering underlying CIN2+, the pooled absolute sensitivity of the 10 included studies was 75.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.1%-82.7%) and 76.2% (95% CI, 68.3%-76.9%) for the triage of ASC-US and LSIL, respectively. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 77.9% (95% CI, 70.1%-85.7%) and 74.2% (95% CI, 69.5%-78.8%) in women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively. Five studies allowed direct comparison of the mRNA assays with HC2. Considering CIN2+ in women with ASC-US and LSIL, mRNA testing was substantially more specific than the HC2 assay (ratio: 1.98 and 3.36, respectively; P .001) but was less sensitive (ratio: 0.80 and 0.74, respectively; P .001).HPV assays for detecting the mRNA of 5 hrHPV types may reduce the over-diagnosis of women who have minor cytologic abnormalities. However, given the lower sensitivity, women with negative mRNA test results cannot be considered free of CIN2+ and require further surveillance.

Background: Several new assays have been developed for high-risk HPV testing of cervical samples; we compare six HPV tests in a screening population. Methods: Residual material from liquid-based PreservCyt samples was assayed. Four tests (Hybrid Capture 2, Cobas, Abbott and Becton-Dickinson (BD)) measured HPV DNA while two used RNA (APTIMA and NorChip). Results: Positivity rates ranged from 13.4 to 16.3% for the DNA-based tests with a significantly lower positivity rate for the Abbott assay. The Gen-Probe APTIMA assay was positive in 10.3% of women, which was significantly lower than all the DNA tests; the NorChip PreTect HPV-Proofer test was much lower at 5.2%. 40 CIN2+ cases were identified, of which 19 were CIN3+. All CIN3+ cases were HPV positive by all tests except for one, which was negative by the Abbott assay and five which were negative by the NorChip test. Conclusion: All HPV tests except NorChip showed high sensitivity for high-grade lesions positive by cytology, suggesting co-testing is unnecessary when using HPV tests. Positivity rates in cytology-negative specimens were similar for the DNA-based tests, but lower for the APTIMA test suggesting this maintains the high sensitivity of DNA tests, but with better specificity.

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing to triage women with minor cervical lesions generates many referrals.To evaluate the accuracy of genotyping for HPV types 16 and 18 and its utility as a second triage step after hrHPV testing in women with minor cervical lesions.Searches of 4 bibliographic databases, without language restrictions, from 1 January 1999 to 1 February 2016.Studies involving women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) who were triaged with tests for hrHPV and HPV 16/18 to find cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade ≥2 [CIN2+] or grade ≥3 [CIN3+]).Independent study selection, extraction of data, and quality assessment by 2 reviewers.Twenty-four moderate- to good-quality studies involving 8587 women with ASC-US and 5284 with LSIL were found. The pooled sensitivity of HPV 16/18 genotyping for CIN3+ was about 70% for women with either ASC-US or LSIL. The pooled specificity (with a threshold of grade2 CIN) was 83% (95% CI, 80% to 86%) for women with ASC-US and 76% (CI, 74% to 79%) for those with LSIL. The average risk for CIN3+ was 17% and 19% in HPV 16/18-positive women with ASC-US and LSIL, respectively, and was 5% in hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women with either ASC-US or LSIL.Methodological and technical heterogeneity among studies; insufficient data to assess accuracy of separate assays.Testing for HPV 16/18 to triage women with minor abnormal cytology is poorly sensitive but may be useful as a second triage test after hrHPV testing, with direct referral if the woman is positive for HPV 16/18. Whether colposcopy or repeated testing is recommended for hrHPV-positive but HPV 16/18-negative women depends on local decision thresholds that can be derived from pretest-posttest probability plots.7th Framework Programme of the European Commission.

Sidney et al. report a large database analysis which purports to show an increased risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism (VTE and ATE) in users of the 30 mcg ethinyl-estradiol (EE)/3 mg drospirenone (DRSP) preparation compared to several older combined pills (COCs). It is a recurring problem that databases do not contain important information necessary for such analyses. In this case there was no information at all regarding body mass index (BMI) smoking or family history. The European Active Surveillance (EURAS) study showed that obesity was more common (1.6-fold higher) among users of DRSP containing COCs compared to users of levonorgestrel (LNG) and other progestogen containing COCs. The EURAS study showed that adjustment for age BMI duration of current use family history of VTE and the interaction between age and BMI reduced the VTE relative risk by 27% as compared with an analysis that adjusted only for age. The analysis published here included women between 2001 and 2007. The comparator pills had been already been available for many years while DRSP containing COCs entered the market in 2001. New users were defined as not having a prescription for a COC in the 6 months preceding entry to the study. However so-called ‘new users’ could simply have had a break and in fact have been using COC for years. Women starting COCs for the first time are more likely to be given a newer pill and thus the DRSP group would certainly have contained more real “new starters” than the comparison group. We are aware that there has been a great deal of publicity in the USA regarding the risk of VTE with DRSP containing pills over the last 10 years; this will certainly have led to detection bias. Women who developed any symptoms were more likely to be referred if they were taking a pill that had recently been in the news associated with a higher risk. Indeed this is suggested by the data in Table 4 where the total mortality in users of DRSP COCs appears to be (nonsignificantly) reduced despite the fact that at the same time they are supposed to increase the risk of both VTE and ATE. When several studies all with the same flaws show similar results this does not mean they are correct. It is simply a repetition of the same incorrect conclusion. (full-text) Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

To explore self-reported cervical screening history and barriers to attendance among women who have been sexually abused and to identify measures to improve the experience of cervical screening for these women.Women visiting the website of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC), who had been sexually abused, were invited to complete a survey of their views and experiences of cervical screening. This included closed questions on demographic characteristics and cervical screening attendance, open questions on barriers to screening, and the opportunity to submit suggestions to improve this experience for women who have been sexually abused. Content analysis was used to code responses to the open questions. Four women also participated in a discussion group.Overall, 135 women completed the closed questions and 124 provided open-ended responses. 77.5% of responding women who were eligible for cervical screening in England had ever attended, 48.5% at least once in the previous 5emsp14;years, but 42.1% of women aged 25-49 within 3emsp14;years. A total of nine higher order themes were identified related to barriers to screening, one related to intention to attend screening and five related to suggestions to improve screening.This study supports the idea that women who have experienced sexual abuse are less likely to attend for regular cervical screening, with under half screened in the last 5emsp14;years compared to the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme figure of 78.6%. Suggestions to improve the experience for abused women focused on communication, safety, trust and sharing control. Further research in this area is warranted to ensure that this at-risk population is appropriately served by cervical screening.

Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide and often affects women under 40 years of age with young families. Vaccination against HPV is a major advancement, as it offers primary prevention against the infectious agent that is the main cause of the disease. The bivalent AS04-adjuvanted prophylactic HPV vaccine provides high efficacy against disease associated with HPV 16 and 18, as well as significant cross-protection against some HPV types not included in the vaccine. Protection against HPV 45 may be particularly important, as it is relatively more common in adenocarcinoma. The vaccine’s antibody response profile suggests a long duration of immunity. Safety data have been reassuring, which is not unexpected, given that the vaccine is composed of virus-like particles, rather than being a live-virus vaccine.

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA/RNA testing provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Several new HPV tests are now available for this purpose, and a direct comparison of their properties is needed. Seven tests were evaluated with samples in liquid PreservCyt transport medium from 1,099 women referred for colposcopy: the Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen), Cobas (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), Aptima HPV (Gen-Probe), and Abbott RealTi m e assays, the BD HPV test, and CINtec p16 INK4a cytology (mtm laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology found on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Three hundred fifty-nine women (32.7%) had CIN grade 2+ (CIN2+), with 224 (20.4%) having CIN3+. For detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture 2 had 96.3% sensitivity, 19.5% specificity, and 37.4% PPV. Cobas had 95.2% sensitivity, 24.0% specificity, and 37.6% PPV. The BD HPV test had 95.0% sensitivity, 24.2% specificity, and 37.8% PPV. Abbott RealTi m e had 93.3% sensitivity, 27.3% specificity, and 38.2% PPV. Aptima had 95.3% sensitivity, 28.8% specificity, and 39.3% PPV. PreTect HPV-Proofer had 74.1% sensitivity, 70.8% specificity, and 55.4% PPV. CINtec p16 INK4a cytology had 85.7% sensitivity, 54.7% specificity, and 49.1% PPV. Cytology of a specimen taken at colposcopy (mild dyskaryosis or worse) had 88.9% sensitivity, 58.1% specificity, and 50.7% PPV. Our study confirms that, in a referral setting, HPV testing by a number of different tests provides high sensitivity for high-grade disease. Further work is needed to confirm these findings in a routine screening setting.

The clearly higher sensitivity and reproducibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) has led to widespread calls to introduce it as the primary screening test. The main concern has been its lower specificity, due to the fact that it cannot separate transient from persistent infections, and only the latter are associated with an increased risk of high-grade CIN and cancer. Thus, even proponents of HPV testing generally only recommend it for women over the age of 30 years (or in some cases 35 years). If HPV testing is to reach its full potential, new approaches with better specificity are needed, either as triage tests for HPV positive women or, if the high sensitivity of HPV DNA testing can be maintained, as alternate primary screening modalities. Approaches that may useful in this regard, especially as triage tests, include HPV typing, methylation (and consequent silencing) of host and viral genes, and new cytologic methods, such as p16(INK4a) staining, which attempt to identify proliferating cells. At an earlier stage of development are direct methods based on detection of HPV E6 or E7 proteins. Recent progress and current status of these methods is discussed in this chapter. The current status of visual inspection (VIA and VILI) methods is also surveyed and progress on self-sampling is reviewed. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases" Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012.

The past 50 years have seen great advances in combined oral contraceptives (COCs) that have resulted in reduced risks of adverse events and improved cycle control. The most important changes in COCs over time include repeated lowering of the estrogen dose, development of new progestogens, and the reduction or elimination of the pill-free interval. Most recently, formulations that deliver estradiol in lieu of ethinylestradiol have been introduced. The advantages of COCs generally far outweigh the disadvantages. Current options in oral contraception include a wide spectrum of products that enable clinicians to choose the most appropriate formulation for individual women. This article summarises the advances in oral contraceptives over time and describes the most current clinical data regarding the use of COCs.

HPV DNA testing is known to be much more sensitive than cytology, but less specific. A range of HPV and related tests in 858 women referred for colposcopy because of an abnormal smear were evaluated to compare the performances of these tests. This article compared the Abbott test to other tests which had been previously evaluated. This test was a real true test for 14 high-risk HPV types. The Abbott test was found to be highly sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) (98.9%) with a specificity of 31.5%. These numbers were comparable with the Qiagen HC2 test, the Roche Linear Array and Amplicor tests, and the Gen-Probe APTIMA test. Differences between these tests appeared to be related mostly to the choice of cutoff level. An added feature of the Abbott test was the provision of type specific results for HPV 16 and 18. J. Med. Virol. 82: 1186–1191, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

We explored Muslim women's attitudes to self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) in the context of cervical cancer screening and their responses to two self-sampling devices.A Muslim community centre in north-east London.Following a talk given on the subject of cervical cancer and HPV at the community centre, 28 women were recruited to take part in three focus group discussions. The discussion covered cervical screening, self-sampling and HPV testing. Women were also asked for their responses to a swab self-sampling kit and a cervico-vaginal lavage device. Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim and the qualitative data were analysed using Framework Analysis.Participants were generally positive about cervical screening but acknowledged that some women in their community were reluctant to attend because of embarrassment, language difficulties, fear or because they were unmarried and did not want to communicate implicit messages about being sexually active. Self-sampling met a mixed response - women were concerned about not doing the test correctly, but thought that it might overcome barriers to screening for some women. HPV testing itself was thought to raise potentially difficult issues relating to trust and fidelity within marriages. Although most women said they would prefer to continue to have screening by a health professional, if they were to perform self-sampling, there was overwhelming preference for the swab over the lavage kit.There was limited enthusiasm for self-sampling in this group of Muslim women who had mostly attended for cervical screening, but a clear preference for a swab rather than a cervico-vaginal lavage.

The types of oral contraception available, their risks and benefits and alternative options.

The cervicography and concurrent endocervical brush smear results obtained in 1162 women screened at the Marie Stopes Clinic were analysed. Colposcopy and biopsy results were obtained for positive cases. A comparison was made with a group of 1007 women attending the same clinic for routine cytology only. Nearly 10% of women who were screened by cervicography had a technically defective cervicogram, the main single reason being that the view was obscured by blood. Routine cytology was positive in 1%, while cervicography was positive in 13%, where positivity was defined as a result leading to a recommendation for colposcopy. The false positive rate for cervicography was 26%. Even after adjustment, this difference was highly significant (P less than 0.0001).

Background: The detection of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA provides higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for the identification of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of several adjunctive tests for the detection of high-grade CIN in a population referred to colposcopy because of abnormal cytology. Methods: 953 women participated in the study. Up to seven tests were carried out on a liquid PreservCyt sample: Hybrid Capture II (Digene), Amplicor (Roche), PreTect HPV-Proofer (NorChip), APTIMA HPV assay (Gen-Probe), Linear Array (Roche), Clinical-Arrays (Genomica), and CINtec p16INK4a Cytology (mtm Laboratories) immunocytochemistry. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were based on the worst histology seen on either the biopsy or the treatment specimen after central review. Results: 273 (28.6%) women had high-grade disease (CIN2+) on worst histology, with 193 (20.2%) having CIN3+. For the detection of CIN2+, Hybrid Capture II had a sensitivity of 99.6%, specificity of 28.4%, and PPV of 36.1%. Amplicor had a sensitivity of 98.9%, specificity of 21.7%, and PPV of 33.5%. PreTect HPV-Proofer had a sensitivity of 73.6%, specificity of 73.1%, and PPV of 52.0%. APTIMA had a sensitivity of 95.2%, specificity of 42.2%, and PPV of 39.9%. CINtec p16INK4a Cytology had a sensitivity of 83.0%, specificity of 68.7%, and PPV of 52.3%. Linear Array had a sensitivity of 98.2%, specificity of 32.8%, and PPV of 37.7%. Clinical-Arrays had a sensitivity of 80.9%, specificity of 37.1%, and PPV of 33.0%. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(11):3033–42)

©FSRH J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2008: 34(4) Background The UK’s human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme should now be underway: vaccination of 12–13year-old girls against HPV was due to begin in September 2008, with a recent announcement that 17–18-year-olds will also be vaccinated in this academic year.1 From September 2009, a further catch-up programme for girls up to the age of 18 years will commence. The Department of Health (DH) has decided that the HPV vaccine to be used for the programme will be Cervarix® (GlaxoSmithKline), which is the bivalent vaccine against the cervical cancer-causing HPV types 16 and 18. This decision has surprised many, in view of the fact that the other available vaccine, Gardasil® (Merck), would protect against genital warts (HPV types 6 and 11) as well as cervical cancer. It is unfortunate that there has not been a proper disclosure of the factors that led to the decision, resulting in widespread speculation amongst health professionals and the media, particularly relating to the cost of the vaccine. A list of the pre-agreed evaluation criteria against which the bids were evaluated has recently been released (Table 1), and includes many factors, which have been weighted, though details of cost are still not given. When questioned, the Secretary of State for Health stated that both published and unpublished data were considered.2 The suggestion in the media that girls in the UK will receive an inferior vaccine may undermine the success of the vaccination programme, as parents become unsure whether it is worth vaccinating their daughter with such a product.3,4 Adding fuel to this debate is a mathematical model published in the BMJ, which was considered by the DH when making its decision.5 This suggests that Cervarix must be £13–£21 cheaper than Gardasil in order to be cost effective. However, it should be noted that a number of assumptions were made in this model; it was assumed both vaccines were identical in terms of efficacy, duration of immunity, cross-protection against nonvaccine HPV types, and that uptake amongst girls would be at least 80%. This last assumption is the least likely to be correct; a pilot study in a primary care trust (PCT) in Manchester found uptake was only 70% overall, and significantly lower in schools with a greater proportion of girls from ethnic minority groups and poorer families. In addition, the Catholic schools in the PCT refused to participate in the pilot.6 One could speculate that another factor influencing the DH decision might have been the possibility of greater acceptability of a ‘cervical cancer vaccine’ (without the need to mention genital warts) in certain ethnic and religious groups.7

OBJECTIVE: To obtain large scale and generalisable data on the long term predictive value of cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+). DESIGN: Multinational cohort study with joint database analysis. SETTING: Seven primary HPV screening studies in six European countries. PARTICIPANTS: 24,295 women attending cervical screening enrolled into HPV screening trials who had at least one cervical cytology or histopathology examination during follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Long term cumulative incidence of CIN3+. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence rate of CIN3+ after six years was considerably lower among women negative for HPV at baseline (0.27%, 95% confidence interval 0.12% to 0.45%) than among women with negative results on cytology (0.97%, 0.53% to 1.34%)). By comparison, the cumulative incidence rate for women with negative cytology results at the most commonly recommended screening interval in Europe (three years) was 0.51% (0.23% to 0.77%). The cumulative incidence rate among women with negative cytology results who were positive for HPV increased continuously over time, reaching 10% at six years, whereas the rate among women with positive cytology results who were negative for HPV remained below 3%. CONCLUSIONS: A consistently low six year cumulative incidence rate of CIN3+ among women negative for HPV suggests that cervical screening strategies in which women are screened for HPV every six years are safe and effective.

Several studies have shown that HPV testing is substantially more sensitive than cytology for primary cervical screening. However, less data exist concerning the duration of protection afforded by a negative HPV test compared to a normal cytological outcome. Here we report the long-term findings from the Hammersmith study in women aged 35 or more. HPV testing by Hybrid Capture II was performed on all available samples from the baseline screening visit. Passive surveillance of subsequent cytology screening results for the 2,982 women in the study was undertaken using a national registry. Histological outcomes were sought for all women with abnormal smears. The primary outcome was duration of protection against histologically confirmed CIN2+ afforded by a negative HPV test compared to normal cytology. 2,516 women had at least one further smear at least 1 year after entry and 20 new cases of CIN2+ were identified during a median follow-up of 6.4 years. Including disease identified at baseline, the risk of developing CIN2+ at 1, 5 and 9 years after a normal cytology was 0.33%, 0.83% and 2.20% respectively whereas it was 0.19%, 0.42% and 1.88% after a negative HPV test. HPV testing offered excellent protection from CIN2+ for at least 6 years after a negative test, whereas the protection from cytology began to wane after about 3 years. Substantially more CIN2+ lesions were found in the follow-up period in those initially HPV positive compared to those HPV negative (HR = 6.52, p = 0.001), whereas there was little difference according to initial cytology (HR = 1.64, p = 0.51).

Objective To provide health professionals involved in cervical cancer screening with an insight into the complex issues relating to communication about screening and to provide a framework for a more effective communication strategy. Methods This paper has been compiled by a multidisciplinary pan-European group of health professionals and cancer advocates from several European screening programmes. European surveys on screening communication, literature reviews and group discussion were used for this purpose. Results Information on cervical screening must be accessible, relevant, comprehensible, comprehensive, client-centred, phase-specific and multilevel. An effective communication strategy should consider health professionals’ screening knowledge and their communication skills, consumers’ health literacy skills and the communication needs of specific sub-groups in the target population. Co-operation between screening professionals, advocacy groups and journalists should be promoted. Conclusion To communicate effectively and appropriately is a complex task which can be influenced by a number of factors. Screening workers need better information themselves and must take into account the needs and characteristics of the target population. Practice implications This document should provide a useful tool to help screening professionals in designing and developing good quality and effective communication strategies.

Vaccines against cervical cancer are being developed but screening is still needed.

91% of low-grade abnormalities on Pap smears in adolescents and young women regress within 36 months and only 3% progress to high-grade disease. This is the main finding from the cohort study in today’s Lancet by Anna- Barbara Moscicki and colleagues from the University of California at San Francisco. These findings are similar to those of a smaller study from Brazil. In the Brazil study which was not restricted to young women an estimated 92.5% of cases regressed within 24 months and 6.5% progressed. The protocol in Moscicki and colleagues’ study called for women with a colposcopic high-grade lesion to be randomly assigned to biopsy or no biopsy. We are told that 17 women were excluded because they had highgrade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) on histological examination and that 67 of the 187 women included had biopsies taken. If 17 of the 84 (20%) women who had a biopsy had HSIL we can infer that a number of HSILs were missed in the 120 women who did not have a biopsy. Thus Moscicki’s study provides strong indirect evidence that HSIL regresses in adolescents and young women in accord with the findings from another study. (excerpt)