Guglielmo Ronco1, Joakim Dillner2, K Miriam Elfström2, Sara Tunesi3, Peter J F Snijders4, Marc Arbyn5, Henry Kitchener6, Nereo Segnan7, Clare Gilham8, Paolo Giorgi-Rossi9, Johannes Berkhof4, Julian Peto8, Chris J L M Meijer4. 1. Center for Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, AO City of Health and Science, Turin, Italy. Electronic address: guglielmo.ronco@cpo.it. 2. Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Center for Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, AO City of Health and Science, Turin, Italy. 4. VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 5. Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 7. Center for Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, AO City of Health and Science, Turin, Italy; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France. 8. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 9. Azienda Sanitaria Locale, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. METHODS: 176,464 women aged 20-64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1,214,415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. FINDINGS: The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40-0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46-1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25-0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15-0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 10(5) (1·1-12·1) and 8·7 per 10(5) (3·3-18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 10(5) (7·9-27·0) and 36·0 per 10(5) (23·2-53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14-0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49-1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30-34 years (0·36, 0·14-0·94). INTERPRETATION: HPV-based screening provides 60-70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. FUNDING: European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.
BACKGROUND: In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. METHODS: 176,464 women aged 20-64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1,214,415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. FINDINGS: The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40-0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46-1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25-0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15-0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 10(5) (1·1-12·1) and 8·7 per 10(5) (3·3-18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 10(5) (7·9-27·0) and 36·0 per 10(5) (23·2-53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14-0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49-1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30-34 years (0·36, 0·14-0·94). INTERPRETATION: HPV-based screening provides 60-70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. FUNDING: European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.
Authors: Anna Manawapat-Klopfer; Lisa Wang; Juliane Haedicke-Jarboui; Frank Stubenrauch; Christian Munk; Louise T Thomsen; Peter Martus; Susanne K Kjaer; Thomas Iftner Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: F Bottari; M Sideri; C Gulmini; S Igidbashian; A Tricca; C Casadio; S Carinelli; S Boveri; D Ejegod; J Bonde; M T Sandri Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Joel Fokom Domgue; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas H Wentzensen; Julia C Gage; Philip E Castle; Tina R Raine-Bennett; Barbara Fetterman; Thomas Lorey; Nancy E Poitras; Brian Befano; Yi Xie; Lais S Miachon; Michael Dean Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Kai Yu; Rosemary Zuna; S Terence Dunn; Han Zhang; Joan Walker; Michael Gold; Noorie Hyun; Greg Rydzak; Hormuzd A Katki; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 7.396