CONTEXT: Although human papillomavirus (HPV) testing may aid in managing low-grade abnormality on screening cervical cytology, patient compliance with repeat testing programs requires consideration. OBJECTIVES: To determine effectiveness and costs of repeated Papanicolaou (Pap) test and oncogenic HPV testing for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of combined Pap test and cervical HPV testing by Hybrid Capture 1 test compared with Pap test alone; tests were performed every 6 months for up to 2 years. The study end point was colposcopic examination performed on all women at 2 years, or earlier if an HPV test was positive or if a Pap test showed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. SETTING:Sixty-six community family practices. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-seven women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on screening cervical cytology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, fully allocated costs, and loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Combined Pap test and HPV testing detected 11 (100%) of 11 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3, whereas Pap test alone detected 7 (63.6%) of these 11 cases (P =.14); corresponding specificities were 39 (46.4%) of 84 and 45 (71.4%) of 63 (P =.005). The cost-effectiveness ratio was Can $4456 per additional case of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Sixty-nine (26.8%) of the 257 women (24.6% combined group vs 29.1% Pap test only group, P =.41) defaulted from testing or from colposcopy when referred with an abnormal result. CONCLUSIONS: Combined testing was more costly but may detect more cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 than Pap test alone. However, poor adherence limits usefulness of a management strategy that requires repeated follow-up.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Although human papillomavirus (HPV) testing may aid in managing low-grade abnormality on screening cervical cytology, patient compliance with repeat testing programs requires consideration. OBJECTIVES: To determine effectiveness and costs of repeated Papanicolaou (Pap) test and oncogenic HPV testing for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of combined Pap test and cervical HPV testing by Hybrid Capture 1 test compared with Pap test alone; tests were performed every 6 months for up to 2 years. The study end point was colposcopic examination performed on all women at 2 years, or earlier if an HPV test was positive or if a Pap test showed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. SETTING: Sixty-six community family practices. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-seven women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on screening cervical cytology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or 3, fully allocated costs, and loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Combined Pap test and HPV testing detected 11 (100%) of 11 cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3, whereas Pap test alone detected 7 (63.6%) of these 11 cases (P =.14); corresponding specificities were 39 (46.4%) of 84 and 45 (71.4%) of 63 (P =.005). The cost-effectiveness ratio was Can $4456 per additional case of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Sixty-nine (26.8%) of the 257 women (24.6% combined group vs 29.1% Pap test only group, P =.41) defaulted from testing or from colposcopy when referred with an abnormal result. CONCLUSIONS: Combined testing was more costly but may detect more cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3 than Pap test alone. However, poor adherence limits usefulness of a management strategy that requires repeated follow-up.
Authors: Hormuzd A Katki; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas Lorey; Li C Cheung; Tina Raine-Bennett; Julia C Gage; Walter K Kinney Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Carmen H Ng; Vladimir Gilca; Andrea Anonychuk; Ba' Pham; Shirra Berliner Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2011-09-05 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: M H Uijterwaal; B I Witte; F J Van Kemenade; D Rijkaart; R Ridder; J Berkhof; G A M A Balfoort-van der Meij; M C G Bleeker; P J F Snijders; C J L M Meijer Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 7.640