BACKGROUND: To determine whether testing for DNA of oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) is superior to the Papanicolaou (Pap) test for cervical-cancer screening, we conducted a randomized trial comparing the two methods. METHODS: We compared HPV testing, using an assay approved by the Food and Drug Administration, with conventional Pap testing as a screening method to identify high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women ages 30 to 69 years in Montreal and St. John's, Canada. Women with abnormal Pap test results or a positive HPV test (at least 1 pg of high-risk HPV DNA per milliliter) underwent colposcopy and biopsy, as did a random sample of women with negative tests. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were corrected for verification bias. RESULTS:A total of 10,154 women were randomly assigned to testing. Both tests were performed on all women in a randomly assigned sequence at the same session. The sensitivity of HPV testing for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2 to 100), whereas the sensitivity of Pap testing was 55.4% (95% CI, 33.6 to 77.2; P=0.01). The specificity was 94.1% (95% CI, 93.4 to 94.8) for HPV testing and 96.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 97.3; P<0.001) for Pap testing. Performance was unaffected by the sequence of the tests. The sensitivity of both tests used together was 100%, and the specificity was 92.5%. Triage procedures for Pap or HPV testing resulted in fewer referrals for colposcopy than did either test alone but were less sensitive. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with Pap testing, HPV testing has greater sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN57612064 [controlled-trials.com].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To determine whether testing for DNA of oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) is superior to the Papanicolaou (Pap) test for cervical-cancer screening, we conducted a randomized trial comparing the two methods. METHODS: We compared HPV testing, using an assay approved by the Food and Drug Administration, with conventional Pap testing as a screening method to identify high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women ages 30 to 69 years in Montreal and St. John's, Canada. Women with abnormal Pap test results or a positive HPV test (at least 1 pg of high-risk HPV DNA per milliliter) underwent colposcopy and biopsy, as did a random sample of women with negative tests. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were corrected for verification bias. RESULTS: A total of 10,154 women were randomly assigned to testing. Both tests were performed on all women in a randomly assigned sequence at the same session. The sensitivity of HPV testing for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2 to 100), whereas the sensitivity of Pap testing was 55.4% (95% CI, 33.6 to 77.2; P=0.01). The specificity was 94.1% (95% CI, 93.4 to 94.8) for HPV testing and 96.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 97.3; P<0.001) for Pap testing. Performance was unaffected by the sequence of the tests. The sensitivity of both tests used together was 100%, and the specificity was 92.5%. Triage procedures for Pap or HPV testing resulted in fewer referrals for colposcopy than did either test alone but were less sensitive. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with Pap testing, HPV testing has greater sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN57612064 [controlled-trials.com].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Authors: Walter Kinney; Barbara Fetterman; J Thomas Cox; Thomas Lorey; Tracy Flanagan; Philip E Castle Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Alison S Rustagi; Aruna Kamineni; Sheila Weinmann; Susan D Reed; Polly Newcomb; Noel S Weiss Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-30 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Nicolas Wentzensen; Chang Sun; Arpita Ghosh; Walter Kinney; Lisa Mirabello; Sholom Wacholder; Ruth Shaber; Brandon LaMere; Megan Clarke; Attila T Lorincz; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Robert D Burk Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 13.506