The HPV test has similar sensitivity but more overdiagnosis than the Pap test--a randomised health services study on cervical cancer screening in Finland.

We compared test sensitivity (in terms of prevented cancers) and overdiagnosis (in terms of non-progressive pre-invasive lesions) between the human papillomavirus test (HPV test, Hybrid Capture 2) and the traditional Pap test in routine screening for cervical cancer. The design was a randomised (1:1) health services study in Finland with intake between 2003 and 2007. We estimated sensitivity by the incidence method within one screening round. Overdiagnosis was based on the rate of cervical intraepithelial Grade 3 (CIN3) lesions diagnosed at screen and during the following interval. Out of 203,788 randomised women 132,298 attended (65% in both study arms) and 600,753 person-years accumulated among attenders up to the end of 2010. In all attenders, 34 invasive cervical cancers and 288 CIN3 lesions were diagnosed at screen or during the following interval. The interval cancer incidence was 2.5/10(5) person-years (sensitivity 0.87) and 1.4 (sensitivity 0.93) in the HPV arm and Pap test arm, respectively. The rate of CIN3 lesions was 57.1 and 38.8, respectively. In conclusion, sensitivity of HPV testing was similar to that of Pap testing but caused more overdiagnosis. Therefore, implementation of HPV testing needs to be reconsidered especially in countries with well organised programmes.

Test positivity cutoff level of a high risk human papillomavirus test could be increased in routine cervical cancer screening.

We present data on test positivity, relative sensitivity, rates of detection and relative specificity for primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing with different cutoff levels for test positivity, in comparison to conventional cytology. In 2003-2004, 18,438 women were screened primarily with Hybrid Capture 2 (HC 2) assay, a test for oncogenic HPV DNA, and 21,446 with conventional cytology within the organised screening programme in Finland. A cytological triage test was performed for the HPV positives. Women with cytology equal to low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) or worse were referred for colposcopy. The relative sensitivity measured as relative risk (RR) of any cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer was 1.58 for the HPV test at the relative light units (rlu) ratio cutoff 1.00, in comparison to cytology. With the cutoff 3.00, all CIN 2+ lesions were detected. With cutoff 10.00, 2 of the 22 CIN 3+ lesions were missed. Relative specificity for HPV screening for any CIN was 92.6% at cutoff 1.00, 94.6% at cutoff 3.00 and 96.3% at cutoff 10.00. For CIN 3+ specificity estimates for these cutoffs were 92.1%, 94.1% and 95.8%, respectively. Used for routine screening as the sole test, the HPV test cutoff can be increased from the level recommended for clinical use. With HC 2, the detection rate at rlu ratio cutoff 10.00 is still at the level of high-quality conventional screening. At that level, the false positive rate is reduced by about half and the specificity of the HPV test becomes equal to the average specificity of conventional cytology.

Screening with a primary human papillomavirus test does not increase detection of cervical cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia 3.

AIM: To determine cross-sectional validity of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening in comparison to cytological screening. METHODS: During 2003-2004, 61,149 women were individually randomised to screening with a test for oncogenic HPV DNA or to conventional cytological screening within the Finnish cervical screening programme. RESULTS: For HPV screening, cross-sectional relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cancer was 1.58 (95 % confidence interval 1.19-2.09) in comparison to cytology. At the level of CIN 3 or cancer no increase in relative sensitivity was observed. Cross-sectional specificity estimates for the screening arms were comparable, but the specificity of screening with sole HPV DNA test was clearly inferior. CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV screening with cytology triage finds more CIN lesions compared to conventional screening but mild lesions are overrepresented. This is likely to result in overdiagnosis since most mild lesions are regressive.

Testing for high-risk HPV in cervical and tonsillar paraffin-embedded tissue using a cartridge-based assay.

This study evaluates the suitability of Xpert HPV (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) test for cervical and tonsillar formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples as compared to the tests currently used in diagnostics. Cervical biopsies and liquid cytology (LC) samples were collected from 48 women attending colposcopy. Biopsies were processed for histology and tested for hrHPV using Xpert HPV. LC samples were tested using Xpert and Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) tests. Also 29 archived tonsillar carcinoma samples were tested using Xpert, and the results were compared with histology and immunohistochemical p16INK4a (p16) staining. Among valid cervical LC samples 46.8% were hrHPV positive using Xpert test and 55.3% with HC2. The sensitivity of Xpert was 84.6% as compared to HC2, and overall test concordance was 91.5%. Test concordance between valid Xpert results from biopsies and LC samples was 84.6%. Among valid tonsillar samples 70.4% were hrHPV positive, and concordance of 96.3% was found between Xpert and p16 staining. To conclude, Xpert HPV test cartridge provides a convenient platform to test individual samples, including FFPE samples. Further studies are needed to establish whether test sensitivity is sufficient to reliably differentiate between hrHPV positive and hrHPV negative head and neck carcinomas.

Detection rates of precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions within one screening round of primary human papillomavirus DNA testing: prospective randomised trial in Finland.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rates of precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions by human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and by conventional cytology screening. DESIGN: Prospective randomised trial. Two cohorts were followed over one screening round of five years, screened initially by primary HPV DNA testing or by primary Pap test. SETTING: Population based programme for cervical cancer screening in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 25-65 years invited for screening in 2003-07 (101,678 in HPV arm; 101,747 in conventional cytology arm). INTERVENTION: Women were randomly allocated (1:1) to primary HPV DNA screening followed by cytology triage if they had positive results, or to primary cytology screening. Screening method was disclosed at the screening visit. Trial personnel involved were aware of all test results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cumulative detection rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), and invasive cervical cancer before the second screening (after five years) or before 31 December 2008. Lesions detected at screening and during the five year interval were included. RESULTS: 1010 and 701 precancerous or cancerous lesions were detected during an average follow-up of 3.6 years in the HPV and cytology arms, respectively. Among invited women, the hazard ratio was 1.53 (95% confidence interval l.28 to 1.84) for CIN grade 1, 1.54 (1.33 to 1.78) for CIN 2, 1.32 (1.09 to 1.59) for CIN 3 or AIS, and 0.81 (0.48 to 1.37) for cervical cancer. In 25-34 year old participants, the cumulative hazard (or cumulative detection rate) was 0.0057 (0.0045 to 0.0072) for HPV screening versus 0.0046 (0.0035 to 0.0059) for conventional screening; corresponding data for women aged 35 years and older were 0.0022 (0.0019 to 0.0026) and 0.0017 (0.0014 to 0.0021), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV DNA screening detects more cervical lesions than primary cytology within one screening round of five years. Even if the detection rate of CIN 3 or AIS increased in the HPV arm in both age groups, the absolute difference in cumulative rates in women aged 35 years or older was small. By carefully selecting age groups and screening intervals, HPV screening could increase the overall detection rate of cervical precancerous lesions only slightly. However, these findings should be interpreted in the context of the high level of opportunistic screening that occurs in Finland. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN23885553.

Rate of cervical cancer, severe intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma in situ in primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage: randomised study within organised screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance and impact of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA screening with cytology triage compared with conventional cytology on cervical cancer and severe pre-cancerous lesions. DESIGN: Randomised trial. SETTING: Population based screening programme for cervical cancer in southern Finland in 2003-5. PARTICIPANTS: 58 076 women, aged 30-60, invited to the routine population based screening programme for cervical cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Primary HPV DNA test (hybrid capture II) with cytology triage if the result was positive or conventional cytological screening (reference). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of cervical cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade III, and adenocarcinoma in situ (as a composite outcome referred to as CIN III+) during 2003-7 through record linkage between files from the screening registry and the national cancer registry. RESULTS: In the HPV and conventional arms there were 95 600 and 95 700 woman years of follow-up and 76 and 53 cases of CIN III+, respectively (of which six and eight were cervical cancers). The relative rate of CIN III+ in the HPV arm versus the conventional arm was 1.44 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.05) among all women invited for screening and 1.77 (1.16 to 2.74) among those who attended. Among women with a normal or negative test result, the relative rate of subsequent CIN III+ was 0.28 (0.04 to 1.17). The rate of cervical cancer between arms was 0.75 (0.25 to 2.16) among women invited for screening and 1.98 (0.52 to 9.38) among those who attended. CONCLUSIONS: When incorporated into a well established organised screening programme, primary HPV screening with cytology triage was more sensitive than conventional cytology in detecting CIN III+ lesions. The number of cases of cervical cancer was small, but considering the high probability of progression of CIN III the findings are of importance regarding cancer prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN23885553.

Age-specific evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening vs conventional cytology in a randomized setting.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing has shown higher sensitivity than cytology for detecting cervical lesions, but it is uncertain whether the higher sensitivity is dependent on the age of the woman being screened. We compared the age-specific performance of primary HPV DNA screening with that of conventional cytology screening in the setting of an organized population-based cervical cancer screening program in Finland. METHODS: From January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2005, randomized invitations were sent to women aged 25-65 years for routine cervical cancer screening by primary high-risk HPV DNA testing (n = 54 207) with a Hybrid Capture 2 assay followed by cytology triage for women who were HPV DNA positive or by conventional cytology screening (n = 54 218). In both screening arms, cytology results of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse triggered a referral for colposcopy. Relative rates (RRs) of detection to assess test sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPVs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the histological endpoints of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 1 or higher (CIN 1+), CIN grade 2 or higher (CIN 2+), and CIN grade 3 or higher (CIN 3+). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The overall frequency of colposcopy referrals was 1.2% in both screening arms. Women younger than 35 years were referred more often in the HPV DNA screening vs the conventional screening arm (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.60). The prevalence of histologically confirmed CIN or cancer was 0.59% in the HPV DNA screening arm vs 0.43% in the conventional screening arm. The relative rates of detection for CIN 1, CIN 2, and CIN 3+ for HPV DNA screening with cytology triage vs conventional screening were 1.44 (95% CI = 0.99 to 2.10), 1.39 (95% CI = 1.03 to 1.88), and 1.22 (95% CI = 0.78 to 1.92), respectively. The specificity of the HPV DNA test with cytology triage was equal to that of conventional screening for all age groups (99.2% vs 99.1% for CIN 2+, P = .13). Among women aged 35 years or older, the HPV DNA test with cytology triage tended to have higher specificity than conventional screening. The PPVs for HPV DNA screening with cytology triage were consistently higher than those for conventional screening. In both screening arms, the test specificities increased with increasing age of the women being screening, whereas the highest PPVs were observed among the youngest women being screened. Overall, 7.2% of women in the HPV DNA screening arm vs 6.6% of women in the conventional screening arm were recommended for intensified follow-up, and the percentages were highest among 25- to 29-year-olds (21.9% vs 10.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage is more sensitive than conventional screening. Among women aged 35 years or older, primary HPV DNA screening with cytology triage is also more specific than conventional screening and decreases colposcopy referrals and follow-up tests.

HPV DNA testing as an adjunct in the management of patients with low grade cytological lesions in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent low grade cytological abnormalities are at increased risk for high grade lesions. We wanted to see whether these patients could be identified by HPV DNA and pap tests. METHODS: A prospective study of 663 patients referred for a colposcopy on the basis of ASC-US or LSIL cytology. High-risk HPV DNA positivity and cytology were compared with histology. RESULTS: In total 65.6% samples were positive for HC2, and the overall proportion of CIN2+ lesions was 14.6%. No CIN2+lesions were found in patients testing HC2-, pap-. There were 5/97 (5.2%) high grade lesions, which were HC2-negative but pap-positive, including 1 cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. The corresponding histological sections were all positive for p16INK in immunostaining. In further analysis by PCR, 3 samples were positive for HPV DNA. High-risk HPV type 67, which is not included in the HC2 probe cocktail, was found in 1 case, and 2 cases were HPV positive but could not be typed. One CIN3 and one AIS remained HPV negative. In these 5 cases, the concomitant pap smear showed ASC-USx1, LSILx1, HSILx2 and AGCx1. During 6-month follow-up, a relatively high number of CIN2+(28/557, 5.0%) emerged from the non-CIN-CIN1 group. CONCLUSIONS: The HC2 test or pap test alone were not sensitive enough to detect all CIN2+lesions. A relatively high number of CIN2+cases emerged from the non-CIN-CIN1 group after 6 months. Adequate follow-up of patients with mild cytological abnormalities, including a repeat pap smear taken during colposcopy and control at 6 months is underscored. Combination of hrHPV DNA and pap test should be considered, since it had high negative predictive value.