Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries.

Screening for cervical cancer precursors by cytology has been very successful in countries where adequate resources exist to ensure high quality and good coverage of the population at risk. Mortality reductions in excess of 50% have been achieved in many developed countries; however the procedure is generally inefficient and unworkable in many parts of the world where the appropriate infrastructure is not achievable. A summary and update of recently published meta-analyses and systematic reviews on four possible clinical applications of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is provided in this article: (1) triage of women with equivocal or low-grade cytological abnormalities; (2) follow-up of women with abnormal screening results who are negative at colposcopy/biopsy; (3) prediction of the therapeutic outcome after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and most importantly (4) primary screening HPV DNA test, solely or in combination with Pap smear to detect cervical cancer precursors. There are clear benefits for the use of HPV DNA testing in the triage of equivocal smears, low-grade smears in older women and in the post-treatment surveillance of women after treatment for CIN. However, there are still issues regarding how best to use HPV DNA testing in primary screening. Primary screening with Hybrid Capture((R)) 2 (HC2) generally detects more than 90% of all CIN2, CIN3 or cancer cases, and is 25% (95% CI): 15-36%) relatively more sensitive than cytology at a cut-off of abnormal squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) (or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) if ASC-US unavailable), but is 6% (95% CI: 4-7%) relatively less specific. Several approaches are currently under evaluation to deal with the lower specificity of HPV DNA testing as associated with transient infection. These include HPV typing for HPV-16 and -18/45, markers of proliferative lesions such as p16 and mRNA coding for the viral E6 and/or E7 proteins, with a potential clinical use recommending more aggressive management in those who are positive. In countries where cytology is of good quality, the most attractive option for primary screening is to use HPV DNA testing as the sole screening modality with cytology reserved for triage of HPV-positive women. Established cytology-based programmes should also be gradually moving towards a greater use of HPV DNA testing to improve their efficacy and safely lengthen the screening interval. The greater sensitivity of HPV DNA testing compared to cytology argues strongly for using HPV DNA testing as the primary screening test in newly implemented programmes, except where resources are extremely limited and only programmes based on visual inspection are affordable. In such countries, use of a simple HPV DNA test followed by immediate 'screen and treat' algorithms based on visual inspection in those who are HPV-positive are needed to minimise the number of visits and make best use of limited resources. A review of studies for visual inspection methods is presented. The fact that HPV is a sexually transmitted infection may lead to anxiety and concerns about sexual relationships. These psychosocial aspects and the need for more information and educational programmes about HPV are also discussed in this article.

[1]  Louise Kuhn,et al.  Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening , 2002, Cancer.

[2]  P. Snijders,et al.  Implementation of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening without a concomitant decrease in participation rate , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[3]  M. van der Aa,et al.  Mass screening programmes and trends in cervical cancer in Finland and the Netherlands , 2007, International journal of cancer.

[4]  T. Wright,et al.  Women's desired information about human papillomavirus , 2004, Cancer.

[5]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing on self‐sampled cervicovaginal brushes: An effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programs , 2007, International journal of cancer.

[6]  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.

[7]  Joakim Dillner,et al.  Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  Thomas C Wright,et al.  Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: a randomized controlled trial. , 2005, JAMA.

[9]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial , 2007, The Lancet.

[10]  J. Wardle,et al.  Social and psychological impact of HPV testing in cervical screening: a qualitative study , 2006, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[11]  S. Goldie,et al.  HPV Communication: Review of Existing Research and Recommendations for Patient Education , 2004, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[12]  H. Kitchener,et al.  Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  T. Rohan,et al.  Human papillomavirus infection and time to progression and regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  J. Cuzick,et al.  HPV triage for low grade (L-SIL) cytology is appropriate for women over 35 in mass cervical cancer screening using liquid based cytology. , 2007, European journal of cancer.

[15]  Colposcopy at a crossroads. , 2006 .

[16]  Eric Lucas,et al.  Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: Results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa , 2004, International journal of cancer.

[17]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India , 2008, International journal of cancer.

[18]  B. Thomsen,et al.  Type specific persistence of high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) as indicator of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in young women: population based prospective follow up study , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  Jose Jeronimo,et al.  Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer , 2007, The Lancet.

[20]  J. Wardle,et al.  Human papillomavirus testing by self-sampling: assessment of accuracy in an unsupervised clinical setting , 2007, Journal of medical screening.

[21]  J. Wardle,et al.  Awareness of human papillomavirus among women attending a well woman clinic , 2003, Sexually transmitted infections.

[22]  K. Ault Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: a combined analysis of four randomised clinical trials , 2007, The Lancet.

[23]  M. von Knebel Doeberitz,et al.  Reliable high risk HPV DNA testing by polymerase chain reaction: an intermethod and intramethod comparison. , 1999, Journal of clinical pathology.

[24]  J. Wardle,et al.  Attitudes towards HPV testing: a qualitative study of beliefs among Indian, Pakistani, African-Caribbean and white British women in the UK , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[25]  S. Tatti,et al.  Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America: This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study , 2005 .

[26]  J. Berkhof,et al.  High Concordance of Results of Testing for Human Papillomavirus in Cervicovaginal Samples Collected by Two Methods, with Comparison of a Novel Self-Sampling Device to a Conventional Endocervical Brush , 2006, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[27]  J. Dillner,et al.  Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. , 2006, Vaccine.

[28]  Sue J Goldie,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  D. Stewart,et al.  Knowledge about human papillomavirus among adolescents. , 2000, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

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

[31]  C. Wheeler,et al.  New technologies in cervical cancer screening. , 2008, Vaccine.

[32]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. , 1996, British Journal of Cancer.

[33]  C. Clavel,et al.  Negative human papillomavirus testing in normal smears selects a population at low risk for developing high-grade cervical lesions , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[34]  J. Fitzgerald,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis , 2005, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[35]  C. Meijer,et al.  Primary screening for high risk HPV by home obtained cervicovaginal lavage is an alternative screening tool for unscreened women. , 2002, Journal of clinical pathology.

[36]  R. Prado,et al.  Effective cervical cytology screening programmes in middle-income countries: the Chilean experience. , 2005, Cancer detection and prevention.

[37]  R. Sankaranarayanan,et al.  Training for cervical cancer prevention programs in low‐resource settings: Focus on visual inspection with acetic acid and cryotherapy , 2005, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[38]  J. Dillner,et al.  Clinical utility of HPV-DNA detection: triage of minor cervical lesions, follow-up of women treated for high-grade CIN: an update of pooled evidence. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[39]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[40]  J. Wardle,et al.  Awareness of risk factors for cancer among British adults. , 2001, Public health.

[41]  P. Sasieni,et al.  Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model , 1999, BMJ.

[42]  L. Gaffikin,et al.  Safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach to cervical-cancer prevention in rural Thailand: a demonstration project , 2003, The Lancet.

[43]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Long‐term follow‐up of cervical abnormalities among women screened by HPV testing and cytology—Results from the Hammersmith study , 2008, International journal of cancer.

[44]  Rajaraman Swaminathan,et al.  Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster-randomised trial , 2007, The Lancet.

[45]  D. Parkin,et al.  A cluster randomized controlled trial of visual, cytology and human papillomavirus screening for cancer of the cervix in rural India , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[46]  David R. Scott,et al.  Baseline cytology, human papillomavirus testing, and risk for cervical neoplasia: a 10-year cohort analysis. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[47]  L Gaffikin,et al.  A critical assessment of screening methods for cervical neoplasia , 2005, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[48]  P. Snijders,et al.  Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.