Vania Reis Girianelli1, Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler2, Gulnar Azevedo e Silva3. 1. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 2. Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 3. Instituto de Medicina Social, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, UERJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive capability of HPV and Pap smear tests for screening pre-cancerous lesions of the cervix over a three-year follow-up, in a population of users of the Brazilian National Health System (SUS). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 2,032 women with satisfactory results for Pap smear and HPV tests using second-generation hybrid capture, made in a previous study. We followed them for 36 months with data obtained from medical records, the Cervix Cancer Information System (SISCOLO), and the Mortality Information System (SIM). The outcome was a histological diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more advanced lesions (CIN2+). We constructed progression curves of the baseline test results for the period, using the Kaplan-Meier method, and estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for each test. RESULTS: A total of 1,440 women had at least one test during follow-up. Progression curves of the baseline test results indicated differences in capability to detect CIN2+ (p < 0.001) with significantly greater capability when both tests were abnormal, followed by only a positive HPV test. The HPV test was more sensitive than the Pap smear (88.7% and 73.6%, respectively; p < 0.05) and had a better negative likelihood ratio (0.13 and 0.30, respectively). Specificity and positive likelihood ratio of the tests were similar. CONCLUSIONS: These findings corroborate the importance of HPV test as a primary cervical cancer screening. Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive capability of HPV and Pap smear tests for screening pre-cancerous lesions of the cervix over a three-year follow-up, in a population of users of the Brazilian National Health System (SUS). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 2,032 women with satisfactory results for Pap smear and HPV tests using second-generation hybrid capture, made in a previous study. We followed them for 36 months with data obtained from medical records, the Cervix Cancer Information System (SISCOLO), and the Mortality Information System (SIM). The outcome was a histological diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more advanced lesions (CIN2+). We constructed progression curves of the baseline test results for the period, using the Kaplan-Meier method, and estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for each test. RESULTS: A total of 1,440 women had at least one test during follow-up. Progression curves of the baseline test results indicated differences in capability to detect CIN2+ (p < 0.001) with significantly greater capability when both tests were abnormal, followed by only a positive HPV test. The HPV test was more sensitive than the Pap smear (88.7% and 73.6%, respectively; p < 0.05) and had a better negative likelihood ratio (0.13 and 0.30, respectively). Specificity and positive likelihood ratio of the tests were similar. CONCLUSIONS: These findings corroborate the importance of HPV test as a primary cervical cancer screening. Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.