Search

BACKGROUND: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is more sensitive but less specific than cytological analysis. Loss in specificity is most relevant in women younger than 35 years because of increased HPV prevalence. We aimed to compare conventional screening with an experimental strategy in women aged 25-34 years, and investigate the effect of different criteria of referral to define the best methods of HPV screening. METHODS: Women were randomly assigned to the conventional procedure (standard cytology, with referral to colposcopy if cytology showed atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more [ASCUS+]) or an experimental procedure (liquid-based cytology and testing for high-risk HPV types, with referral to colposcopy with ASCUS+ cytology). Women positive for HPV (cutoff >/=1 pg/mL) but with normal cytology were retested after 1 year. The main endpoint was the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in reviewed histology. The main analysis was by intention to screen. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81678807. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 5808 women aged 25-34 years to the conventional group and 6002 to the experimental group. The experimental procedure was significantly more sensitive than the conventional procedure (55 vs 33 CIN2+ lesions detected; relative sensitivity 1.61 [95% CI 1.05-2.48]), but had a lower positive predictive value (PPV; relative PPV 0.55 [0.37-0.82]). HPV testing (>/=1 pg/mL) with cytology triage was also more sensitive than conventional cytology (relative sensitivity 1.58 [1.03-2.44], relative PPV 0.78 [0.52-1.16]). Relative PPV could be improved, with minimum loss in sensitivity, by use of a 2 pg/mL cutoff for HPV testing. Compared with conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology had a relative sensitivity of 1.32 (0.84-2.06), relative PPV 0.58 [0.38-0.89]). INTERPRETATION: HPV testing alone with cytology triage could be a feasible alternative to conventional cytology for screening women younger than 35 years. Follow-up will provide data on possible overdiagnosis and on the feasibility of extended intervals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening have been initiated in the Europe Against Cancer Programme. The first edition established the principles of organised population-based screening and stimulated numerous pilot projects. The second multidisciplinary edition was published in 2008 and comprises ∼250 pages divided into seven chapters prepared by 48 authors and contributors. Considerable attention has been devoted to organised, population-based programme policies which minimise adverse effects and maximise benefits of screening. It is hoped that this expanded guidelines edition will have a greater impact on countries in which screening programmes are still lacking and in which opportunistic screening has been preferred in the past. Other methodological aspects such as future prospects of human papillomavirus testing and vaccination in cervical cancer control have also been examined in the second edition; recommendations for integration of the latter technologies into European guidelines are currently under development in a related project supported by the European Union Health Programme. An overview of the fundamental points and principles that should support any quality-assured screening programme and key performance indicators are presented here in a summary document of the second guidelines edition in order to make these principles and standards known to a wider scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BACKGROUND: Human-papillomavirus (HPV) testing is more sensitive, but less specific, than conventional cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We assessed whether HPV testing with triage by p16-INK4A overexpression can increase specificity while maintaining sensitivity. METHODS: HPV-positive women were enrolled between June 10, 2003, and Dec 31, 2004 in a multicentre randomised controlled trial, which compared stand-alone HPV testing by Hybrid Capture 2 (experimental group) with conventional cytology, were referred for colposcopy. In seven of nine centres, cytospin preparations from these women were tested for p16-INK4A overexpression by immunostaining. The sensitivity and specificity for CIN grade 2 or more, determined at blind review of histology, were calculated for these women. We also estimated the relative sensitivity and relative referral to colposcopy that would have been obtained by HPV testing with p16-INK4A triage compared with conventional cytology. This trial is registered as a Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81678807. FINDINGS: 24 661 women were randomly assigned to the experimental group. 1137 women (74% of those undergoing colposcopy in relevant centres), including 50 with CIN2 and 42 with CIN3 or cancer, had valid p16-INK4A immunostaining. For the endpoint of CIN2+, sensitivity and specificity of p16-INK4A (deemed positive with any number of stained cells-except endocervical, metaplastic, and atrophic cells if morphologically normal) in HPV-positive women of any age were 88% (81 of 92; 95% CI 80-94) and 61% (633 of 1045; 57-64), respectively. In the 35-60-year age group, the relative sensitivity of HPV testing and p16-INK4A triage versus conventional cytology for CIN2+ was 1.53 (95% CI 1.15-2.02) and relative referral was 1.08 (0.96-1.21). In the 25-34-year age group, relative sensitivity was 3.01 (1.82-5.17) and relative referral was 1.15 (0.96-1.37). In the latter age group, when 5% or more stained cells were deemed positive, the corresponding values were 2.06 (1.20-3.68) and 0.58 (0.46-0.73), respectively. INTERPRETATION: HPV testing with p16-INK4A triage produces a significant increase in sensitivity compared with conventional cytology, with no substantial increase in referral to colposcopy. FUNDING: European Union, Italian Ministry of Health, Regional Health Administrations of Piemonte, Tuscany, Veneto, and Emilia-Romagna, and Public Health Agency of Lazio Region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]