P J Maver1, M Poljak2. 1. Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Zaloška 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Electronic address: polona.maver@mf.uni-lj.si. 2. Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Zaloška 4, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Electronic address: mario.poljak@mf.uni-lj.si.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytology-based screening has been a cornerstone of cervical cancer prevention for decades. Following extensive evidence demonstrating higher sensitivity and accuracy, lower variability and better reproducibility of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening compared with conventional or liquid-based cytology, recent European guidelines strongly recommend primary HPV-based screening over standard cytology-based screening. In addition, HPV-based screening offers the possibility of self-sampling and makes possible longer screening intervals in women with negative screening results. OBJECTIVES: We summarize the current status of implementation of HPV-based screening in Europe, describe the real-life experience and challenges from countries already performing HPV-based screening, and briefly review immediate and long-term plans for screening implementation in selected European countries. SOURCES: Data were obtained from peer-reviewed literature, personal communication with experts and authorities involved in formulating national recommendations and practical guidelines, and relevant national websites. CONTENT: As of July 2019, the Netherlands and Turkey are the only European countries with fully implemented national HPV-based cervical cancer screening. Italy, Sweden and Finland have already implemented HPV-based screening in several regions, and several other countries are at various stages of implementation. Some countries are considering transitioning from cytology-based to HPV-based screening, but are struggling with the suboptimal performance of current population-based programmes. Implementation of HPV-based screening has resulted in higher colposcopy referral rates, but also higher detection rates of CIN3+ lesions and cervical cancers requiring immediate treatment. Cytology is mostly used as a triage test, although other strategies are under consideration in some countries. IMPLICATIONS: HPV-based screening is best suited in organized population-based screening settings. In 2019, cervical cancer screening policies across Europe vary greatly. Experience in countries with national and regional HPV-based screening already implemented is generally very positive. Urgent action is needed in many European countries, especially those with suboptimal opportunistic cytology-based cervical cancer screening.
BACKGROUND: Cytology-based screening has been a cornerstone of cervical cancer prevention for decades. Following extensive evidence demonstrating higher sensitivity and accuracy, lower variability and better reproducibility of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening compared with conventional or liquid-based cytology, recent European guidelines strongly recommend primary HPV-based screening over standard cytology-based screening. In addition, HPV-based screening offers the possibility of self-sampling and makes possible longer screening intervals in women with negative screening results. OBJECTIVES: We summarize the current status of implementation of HPV-based screening in Europe, describe the real-life experience and challenges from countries already performing HPV-based screening, and briefly review immediate and long-term plans for screening implementation in selected European countries. SOURCES: Data were obtained from peer-reviewed literature, personal communication with experts and authorities involved in formulating national recommendations and practical guidelines, and relevant national websites. CONTENT: As of July 2019, the Netherlands and Turkey are the only European countries with fully implemented national HPV-based cervical cancer screening. Italy, Sweden and Finland have already implemented HPV-based screening in several regions, and several other countries are at various stages of implementation. Some countries are considering transitioning from cytology-based to HPV-based screening, but are struggling with the suboptimal performance of current population-based programmes. Implementation of HPV-based screening has resulted in higher colposcopy referral rates, but also higher detection rates of CIN3+ lesions and cervical cancers requiring immediate treatment. Cytology is mostly used as a triage test, although other strategies are under consideration in some countries. IMPLICATIONS: HPV-based screening is best suited in organized population-based screening settings. In 2019, cervical cancer screening policies across Europe vary greatly. Experience in countries with national and regional HPV-based screening already implemented is generally very positive. Urgent action is needed in many European countries, especially those with suboptimal opportunistic cytology-based cervical cancer screening.
Authors: Gabrielle Griffin-Mathieu; Ben Haward; Ovidiu Tatar; Patricia Zhu; Samara Perez; Gilla K Shapiro; Emily McBride; Erika L Thompson; Laurie W Smith; Aisha K Lofters; Ellen M Daley; Juliet R Guichon; Jo Waller; Marc Steben; Kathleen M Decker; Marie-Helene Mayrand; Julia M L Brotherton; Gina S Ogilvie; Gregory D Zimet; Teresa Norris; Zeev Rosberger Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Anna Gottschlich; Dirk van Niekerk; Laurie W Smith; Lovedeep Gondara; Joy Melnikow; Darrel A Cook; Marette Lee; Gavin Stuart; Ruth E Martin; Stuart Peacock; Eduardo L Franco; Andrew Coldman; Mel Krajden; Gina Ogilvie Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jiasi Wang; Jeannette P Staheli; Andrew Wu; Jason E Kreutz; Qiongzheng Hu; Jingang Wang; Thomas Schneider; Bryant S Fujimoto; Yuling Qin; Gloria S Yen; Bob Weng; Kara Shibley; Halia Haynes; Rachel L Winer; Qinghua Feng; Daniel T Chiu Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Rebecca B Perkins; Richard L Guido; Mona Saraiya; George F Sawaya; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mark Schiffman; Sarah Feldman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Douglas P Malinowski; Molly Broache; Laurence Vaughan; Jeff Andrews; Devin Gary; Harvey W Kaufman; Damian P Alagia; Zhen Chen; Agnieszka Onisko; R Marshall Austin Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.493