Literature DB >> 33187968

Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear Test, Liquid-Based Cytology, and Human Papillomavirus Testing as Stand-alone or Cotesting Strategies.

Linda A Liang1, Thomas Einzmann2, Arno Franzen3, Katja Schwarzer4, Gunther Schauberger1, Dirk Schriefer1,5, Kathrin Radde1, Sylke R Zeissig6, Hans Ikenberg7, Chris J L M Meijer8, Charles J Kirkpatrick9, Heinz Kölbl10, Maria Blettner11, Stefanie J Klug12.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some countries have implemented stand-alone human papillomavirus (HPV) testing while others consider cotesting for cervical cancer screening. We compared both strategies within a population-based study.
METHODS: The MARZY cohort study was conducted in Germany. Randomly selected women from population registries aged ≥30 years (n = 5,275) were invited to screening with Pap smear, liquid-based cytology (LBC, ThinPrep), and HPV testing (Hybrid Capture2, HC2). Screen-positive participants [ASC-US+ or high-risk HC2 (hrHC2)] and a random 5% sample of screen-negatives were referred to colposcopy. Post hoc HPV genotyping was conducted by GP5+/6+ PCR-EIA with reverse line blotting. Sensitivity, specificity (adjusted for verification bias), and potential harms, including number of colposcopies needed to detect 1 precancerous lesion (NNC), were calculated.
RESULTS: In 2,627 screened women, cytological sensitivities (Pap, LBC: 47%) were lower than HC2 (95%) and PCR (79%) for CIN2+. Cotesting demonstrated higher sensitivities (HC2 cotesting: 99%; PCR cotesting: 84%), but at the cost of lower specificities (92%-95%) compared with HPV stand-alone (HC2: 95%; PCR: 94%) and cytology (97% or 99%). Cotesting versus HPV stand-alone showed equivalent relative sensitivity [HC2: 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.21; PCR: 1.07, 95% CI, 1.00-1.27]. Relative specificity of Pap cotesting with either HPV test was inferior to stand-alone HPV. LBC cotesting demonstrated equivalent specificity (both tests: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.99-1.00). NNC was highest for Pap cotesting.
CONCLUSIONS: Cotesting offers no benefit in detection over stand-alone HPV testing, resulting in more false positive results and colposcopy referrals. IMPACT: HPV stand-alone screening offers a better balance of benefits and harms than cotesting.See related commentary by Wentzensen and Clarke, p. 432. ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33187968     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  3 in total

1.  Colposcopy non-attendance following an abnormal cervical cancer screening result: a prospective population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Linda A Liang; Sylke R Zeissig; Gunther Schauberger; Sophie Merzweiler; Kathrin Radde; Sabine Fischbeck; Hans Ikenberg; Maria Blettner; Stefanie J Klug
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 2.742

2.  Comparison of primary cytology, primary HPV testing and co-testing as cervical cancer screening for Chinese women: a population-based screening cohort.

Authors:  Zhi-Fang Li; Xin-Hua Jia; Xiangxian Feng; Shaokai Zhang; Xun Zhang; Qin-Jing Pan; Xun-Wen Zou; Yue-Qing Hao; Xi-Bin Sun; You-Lin Qiao
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-10-17       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  Investigation of the Clinical Application Value of HR-HPV DNA Combined with Liquid Based Cytology in Colposcopy of Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Ying Zhou
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 3.009

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.