Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Although testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than cytology alone for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), studies comparing conventional and liquid-based cytology have had conflicting results. METHODS In the first phase of a two-phase multicenter randomized controlled trial, women aged 35-60 years in the conventional arm (n = 16,658) were screened using conventional cytology, and women in the experimental arm (n = 16,706) had liquid-based cytology and were tested for high-risk HPV types using the Hybrid Capture 2 assay. Women in the conventional arm were referred to colposcopy with atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or higher and those in the experimental arm were referred with ASCUS or higher cytology or with a positive (> or = 1 pg/mL) HPV test. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) were calculated. RESULTS The screening methods and referral criterion applied in the experimental arm had higher sensitivity than that in the conventional arm (relative sensitivity = 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 2.09) but a lower PPV (relative PPV = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.66). With HPV testing alone at > or = 1 pg/mL and at > or = 2 pg/mL, the gain in sensitivity compared with the conventional arm remained similar (relative sensitivity = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.04 and relative sensitivity = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.01, respectively) but PPV progressively improved (relative PPV = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.98 and relative PPV = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.45 and 1.27, respectively). Referral based on liquid-based cytology alone did not increase sensitivity compared with conventional cytology (relative sensitivity = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.55) but reduced PPV (relative PPV = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.82). CONCLUSIONS HPV testing alone was more sensitive than conventional cytology among women 35-60 years old. Adding liquid-based cytology improved sensitivity only marginally but increased false-positives. HPV testing using Hybrid Capture 2 with a 2 pg/mL cutoff may be more appropriate than a 1 pg/mL cutoff for primary cervical cancer screening.

[1]  A. Tos,et al.  Reproducibility of HPV DNA Testing by Hybrid Capture 2 in a Screening Setting. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[2]  R. Zanetti,et al.  Impact of the introduction of organised screening for cervical cancer in Turin, Italy: cancer incidence by screening history 1992–98 , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.

[3]  S. Franceschi,et al.  Prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in women in Turin, Italy. , 2005, European journal of cancer.

[4]  Allan M. Seidenfeld,et al.  Results of the implementation of liquid‐based cytology—SurePath in the Ontario screening program , 2004, Cancer.

[5]  M. Fremont-Smith,et al.  Comparison of the Surepath™ liquid‐based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct‐to‐vial study , 2004, Cancer.

[6]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Comparing conventional and liquid‐based smears from a consecutive series of 297 subjects referred to colposcopy assessment , 2004, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[7]  Joakim Dillner,et al.  Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  M. Sherman,et al.  Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico , 2003, Cancer Causes & Control.

[9]  A. Cheung,et al.  Liquid‐based cytology and conventional cervical smears , 2003 .

[10]  U Menon,et al.  Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study , 2003, The Lancet.

[11]  T. Iftner,et al.  Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  J. Coste,et al.  Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Shalini L Kulasingam,et al.  Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. , 2002, JAMA.

[14]  John J. Baker,et al.  Conventional and liquid‐based cervicovaginal cytology: A comparison study with clinical and histologic follow‐up , 2002, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[15]  S. Rabe-Hesketh,et al.  Reliable Estimation of Generalized Linear Mixed Models using Adaptive Quadrature , 2002 .

[16]  J. Obwegeser,et al.  Does Liquid-Based Technology Really Improve Detection of Cervical Neoplasia? , 2001, Acta Cytologica.

[17]  H. Jones,et al.  Comparison of Three Management Strategies for Patients With Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance: Baseline Results From a Randomized Trial , 2001 .

[18]  C. Clavel,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women , 2001, British Journal of Cancer.

[19]  Johannes Haerting,et al.  Screening for high‐grade cervical intra‐epithelial neoplasia and cancer by testing for high‐risk HPV, routine cytology or colposcopy , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[20]  W. Tench,et al.  Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance. , 2000, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[21]  E. Franco,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. , 2000, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[22]  T. Wright,et al.  Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource‐poor settings , 2000, Cancer.

[23]  T. Wright,et al.  Human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  S Wacholder,et al.  HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. , 2000, JAMA.

[25]  A. Morabia,et al.  Efficacy of a liquid‐based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population with a low incidence of cervical cancer , 2000 .

[26]  S. Kabawat,et al.  Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer papanicolaou smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[27]  J. Cuzick,et al.  HPV testing in primary screening of older women , 1999, British Journal of Cancer.

[28]  C. Clavel,et al.  Hybrid Capture II-based human papillomavirus detection, a sensitive test to detect in routine high-grade cervical lesions: a preliminary study on 1518 women , 1999, British Journal of Cancer.

[29]  D. Davey,et al.  ThinPrep® Pap Test™ , 1999, Cancer.

[30]  R. Hiatt,et al.  Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. , 1999, JAMA.

[31]  M. Sherman,et al.  Utility of liquid‐based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening , 1999, Cancer.

[32]  S. Selvaggi,et al.  Use of the Thin Prep® Pap Test™ in clinical practice , 1999, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[33]  P. Vassilakos,et al.  Direct-to-Vial Use of the AutoCyte PREP Liquid-Based Preparation for Cervical-Vaginal Specimens in Three European Laboratories , 1999, Acta Cytologica.

[34]  J Cuzick,et al.  A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[35]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening , 1995, The Lancet.