Joan Murphy1, Erin B Kennedy2, Sheila Dunn3, C Meg McLachlin4, Michael Fung Kee Fung5, Danusia Gzik6, Michael Shier7, Lawrence Paszat8. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University Health Network, Toronto ON. 2. Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario and Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton ON. 3. Family Practice Unit, Women's College Hospital, Toronto ON. 4. London Health Sciences Centre, London ON. 5. Ottawa General Hospital, Ottawa ON. 6. North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network, Huntsville ON. 7. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto ON. 8. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto ON.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous findings from cross-sectional studies have shown human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to be more sensitive than cytology testing for primary cervical screening. This systematic review aims to assess whether the increase in baseline detection with HPV testing corresponds to lower rates in subsequent screening rounds. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (published from 2005 to 2010) comparing HPV-based and cytology-based cervical screening. Primary outcomes of interest were relative rates of higher grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer. Secondary outcomes included test performance characteristics and colposcopy referral rates. Results were pooled where possible using a random effects model. RESULTS: Seven randomized trials were identified. Across studies, HPV testing was more accurate than conventional cytology and detected significantly more CIN3+ in the first screening round (Mantel-Haenszel [M-H] risk ratio 1.67; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19) and significantly less in the second screening round (M-H RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.66). There were no differences in pooled rates of CIN2+ (M-H RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.50) and CIN3+ (M-H RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.42), but there was a higher pooled rate of CIN2 (M-H RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.68) over two screening rounds. A trend towards lower rates of invasive cervical cancer was observed. CONCLUSION: Organized screening programs in higher resource settings should consider adopting HPV testing as the primary screening test for women 30 or 35 years of age and older. Further research is needed to determine optimal screening strategies for younger women.
OBJECTIVE: Previous findings from cross-sectional studies have shown human papillomavirus (HPV) testing to be more sensitive than cytology testing for primary cervical screening. This systematic review aims to assess whether the increase in baseline detection with HPV testing corresponds to lower rates in subsequent screening rounds. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (published from 2005 to 2010) comparing HPV-based and cytology-based cervical screening. Primary outcomes of interest were relative rates of higher grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer. Secondary outcomes included test performance characteristics and colposcopy referral rates. Results were pooled where possible using a random effects model. RESULTS: Seven randomized trials were identified. Across studies, HPV testing was more accurate than conventional cytology and detected significantly more CIN3+ in the first screening round (Mantel-Haenszel [M-H] risk ratio 1.67; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19) and significantly less in the second screening round (M-H RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.66). There were no differences in pooled rates of CIN2+ (M-H RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.50) and CIN3+ (M-H RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.42), but there was a higher pooled rate of CIN2 (M-H RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.68) over two screening rounds. A trend towards lower rates of invasive cervical cancer was observed. CONCLUSION: Organized screening programs in higher resource settings should consider adopting HPV testing as the primary screening test for women 30 or 35 years of age and older. Further research is needed to determine optimal screening strategies for younger women.
Authors: Margaret Z Wang; Rui-Mei Feng; Shaoming Wang; Xian-Zhi Duan; Dong Li; Xun Zhang; Rong Mu; Youlin Qiao; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: H N Pedersen; L W Smith; C Sarai Racey; D Cook; M Krajden; D van Niekerk; G S Ogilvie Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Constance Mao; Shalini L Kulasingam; Hilary K Whitham; Stephen E Hawes; John Lin; Nancy B Kiviat Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: D A M Heideman; A T Hesselink; F J van Kemenade; T Iftner; J Berkhof; F Topal; D Agard; C J L M Meijer; P J F Snijders Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Putu Duff; Gina Ogilvie; Jean Shoveller; Ofer Amram; Jill Chettiar; Paul Nguyen; Sabina Dobrer; Julio Montaner; Kate Shannon Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 9.308