Acceleration of cervical cancer diagnosis with human papillomavirus testing below age 30: Observational study.

Several international cervical screening guidelines advise against using high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in women younger than 30. The rationale for this in young women, lies in the potential for additional detection of both low-grade and high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) leading to unnecessary treatments without reducing the burden of cervical cancer. We studied 56 544 women screened at 24 to 29 with HR-HPV testing and 116 858 screened with liquid-based cytology (LBC) in the English HPV screening pilot. They were compared to 528 460 women screened at the age of 30 to 49. We studied the detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 across two consecutive screening rounds 3 years apart. At 24 to 29, a positive HR-HPV test detected more cases of cervical cancer in the prevalence round than did a positive LBC test (1.36/1000 screened vs 0.82/1000, ORadj : 1.61, 95% CI: 1.18-2.19). In women with a negative HR-HPV test, cervical cancer was diagnosed before or at the incidence round in 0.07/1000. After a negative LBC test, cancer detection reached 0.47/1000 and 40% of these cases were diagnosed at FIGO stage IB+. HR-HPV testing increased the detection of CIN2/3 diagnoses in two consecutive rounds combined by 30% (71.9/1000 vs 55.2/1000). The patterns of detection of cervical cancer and CIN2/3 were almost identical at older ages. These data support using HR-HPV testing for screening of women younger than 30, which not only accelerates the diagnosis of cervical cancer but leads to a similar relative increase in CIN2/3 diagnosis to that found in women aged 30 to 49.

Age-specific outcomes from the first round of HPV screening in unvaccinated women: Observational study from the English cervical screening pilot.

OBJECTIVE: To report detailed age-specific outcomes from the first round of an English pilot studying the implementation of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. DESIGN: Observational study with screening in 2013-2016, followed by two early recalls and/or colposcopy until the end of 2019. SETTING: Six NHS laboratory sites. POPULATION: A total of 1 341 584 women undergoing screening with HR-HPV testing or liquid-based cytology (LBC). METHODS: Early recall tests and colposcopies were recommended, depending on the nature of the screening-detected abnormality. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We reported standard screening process indicators, e.g. proportions with an abnormality, including high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) or cancer, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of colposcopy for CIN2+, by screening test and age group. RESULTS: Among unvaccinated women screened with HR-HPV testing at age 24-29 years, 26.9% had a positive test and 10.4% were directly referred to colposcopy following cytology triage, with a PPV for CIN2+ of 47%. At 50-64 years of age, these proportions were much lower: 5.3%, 1.2% and 27%, respectively. The proportions of women testing positive for HR-HPV without cytological abnormalities, whose early recall HR-HPV tests returned negative results, were similar across the age spans: 54% at 24-29 years and 55% at 50-64 years. Two-thirds of infections at any age were linked to non-16/18 genotypes. Among women with CIN2, CIN3 or cervical cancer, however, the proportion of non-16/18 infections increased with age. As expected, the detection of abnormalities was lower following screening with LBC. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a reliable reference for future epidemiological studies, including those concerning the effectiveness of HPV vaccination. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Data from the English pilot study provide a comprehensive overview of abnormalities detected through HPV screening.

Supporting the implementation of new healthcare technologies by investigating generalisability of pilot studies using area-level statistics.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of new technologies into national health care systems requires careful capacity planning. This is sometimes informed by data from pilot studies that implement the technology on a small scale in selected areas. A critical consideration when using implementation pilot studies for capacity planning in the wider system is generalisability. We studied the feasibility of using publicly available national statistics to determine the degree to which results from a pilot might generalise for non-pilot areas, using the English human papillomavirus (HPV) cervical screening pilot as an exemplar. METHODS: From a publicly available source on population indicators in England ("Public Health Profiles"), we selected seven area-level indicators associated with cervical cancer incidence, to produce a framework for post-hoc pilot generalisability analysis. We supplemented these data by those from publicly available English Office for National Statistics modules. We compared pilot to non-pilot areas, and pilot regimens (pilot areas using the previous standard of care (cytology) vs. the new screening test (HPV)). For typical process indicators that inform real-world capacity planning in cancer screening, we used standardisation to re-weight the values directly observed in the pilot, to better reflect the wider population. A non-parametric quantile bootstrap was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for differences in area-weighted means for indicators. RESULTS: The range of area-level statistics in pilot areas covered most of the spectrum observed in the wider population. Pilot areas were on average more deprived than non-pilot areas (average index of multiple deprivation 24.8 vs. 21.3; difference: 3.4, 95% CI: 0.2-6.6). Participants in HPV pilot areas were less deprived than those in cytology pilot areas, matching area-level statistics. Differences in average values of the other six indicators were less pronounced. The observed screening process indicators showed minimal change after standardisation for deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: National statistical sources can be helpful in establishing the degree to which the types of areas outside pilot studies are represented, and the extent to which they match selected characteristics of the rest of the health care system ex-post. Our analysis lends support to extrapolation of process indicators from the HPV screening pilot across England.

Attendance at early recall and colposcopy in routine cervical screening with human papillomavirus testing.

Attendance at early recall and colposcopy is crucial to attaining the benefits of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-based screening. Within the English HPV pilot, we analysed deprivation- and age-related patterns of attendance at colposcopy and 12- and 24-month early recall of HR-HPV positive women screened in 2013 to 2015 (N = 36 466). We fitted logistic regression models for adjusted odds ratios (OR). Despite high overall attendance, area deprivation had a small but significant impact at both early recalls, for example, attendance at 24 months was 86.3% and 83.0% in less vs more deprived areas, respectively (ORadj : 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.87). Older women (≥30 years) were more likely to attend early recall than younger women (<30 years), for example, attendance at 24 months was 86.1% vs 82.3%, respectively (ORadj : 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.51). Most women attended colposcopy following a baseline referral, with 96.9% attendance among more deprived and 97.8% among less deprived areas (ORadj : 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88). Differences in colposcopy attendance by deprivation level at 12 and 24 months were of approximately the same magnitude. In conclusion, attendance at early recall and colposcopy was reassuringly high. Although there were statistically significant differences by deprivation and age group, these were small in absolute terms.

Cytology interpretation after a change to HPV testing in primary cervical screening: Observational study from the English pilot.

BACKGROUND: Overcalling of abnormalities has been a concern for using cytology triage after positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests in cervical screening. METHODS: The authors studied the detection of cytological and histological abnormalities at age 24 to 64 years, using data from the English HPV pilot. The pilot compared routine implementation of primary cervical screening based on cytology (N = 931,539), where HPV test results were not available before cytology reporting, with that based on HPV testing (N = 403,269), where cytology was only required after positive HPV tests. RESULTS: Revealed HPV positivity was associated with a higher direct referral to colposcopy after any abnormality (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj ], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.18). Laboratories with higher direct referral referred fewer persistently HPV-positive women after early recall. The detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) after direct referral increased with an ORadj of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.13-1.20) for informed versus uninformed cytology. Generally, the positive predictive value (PPV) of colposcopy for CIN2+ remained comparable under both conditions of interpreting cytology. In women 50 to 64 years old with high-grade dyskaryosis, however, the PPV increased from 71% to 83% after revealing HPV positivity (ORadj , 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.93). CONCLUSIONS: Quality-controlled cervical screening programs can avoid inappropriate overgrading of HPV-positive cytology.

Extension of cervical screening intervals with primary human papillomavirus testing: observational study of English screening pilot data.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated evidence about the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+) and cervical cancer after a negative human papillomavirus (HPV) test in primary cervical screening, by age group and test assay. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Real world data from the English HPV screening pilot's first and second rounds (2013-16, follow-up to end of 2019). PARTICIPANTS: 1 341 584 women. INTERVENTIONS: Cervical screening with HPV testing or liquid based cytological testing (cytology or smear tests). Women screened with cytology were referred to colposcopy after high grade cytological abnormalities or after borderline or low grade abnormalities combined with a positive HPV triage test. Women screened with HPV testing who were positive were referred at baseline if their cytology triage test showed at least borderline abnormalities or after a retest (early recall) at 12 and 24 months if they had persistent abnormalities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of CIN3+ and cervical cancer after a negative HPV test. RESULTS: For women younger than 50 years, second round detection of CIN3+ in this study was significantly lower after a negative HPV screen in the first round than after cytology testing (1.21/1000 v 4.52/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.30), as was the risk of interval cervical cancer (1.31/100 000 v 2.90/100 000 woman years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.44, 0.23 to 0.84). Risk of an incident CIN3+ detected at the second screening round in the pilot five years after a negative HPV test was even lower in women older than 50 years, than in three years in women younger than 50 years (0.57/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 0.27 to 0.79). Women with negative HPV tests at early recall after a positive HPV screening test without cytological abnormalities had a higher detection rate of CIN3+ at the second routine recall than women who initially tested HPV negative (5.39/1000 v 1.21/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 3.27, 95% confidence interval 2.21 to 4.84). Detection after a negative result on a clinically validated APTIMA mRNA HPV test was similar to that after clinically validated cobas and RealTime DNA tests (for CIN3+ at the second round 1.32/1000 v 1.14/1000 women screened, adjusted odds ratio 1.05, 0.73 to 1.50). CONCLUSIONS: These data support an extension of the screening intervals, regardless of the test assay used: to five years after a negative HPV test in women aged 25-49 years, and even longer for women aged 50 years and older. The screening interval for HPV positive women who have negative HPV tests at early recall should be kept at three years.