Large performance variation does not affect outcome in the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: Cytology screening for prevention of cervical cancer can reduce incidence and mortality by more than 80% in settings with good organization and rigorous quality control. Audit studies are essential for reaching and maintaining a high quality of screening. The aim of this study was to evaluate variation in performance indicators by screening laboratory and assess the impact on the effectiveness of screening as indicated by cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and above (CIN3+) rates after a negative screen. METHODS: Seven cytology screening laboratories operating during 1990-1999 with a total of 953 610 screening tests performed were included in the study. By linking screening and cancer register files, all cases of CIN3+ diagnosed in the screened population were identified. For 395 CIN3+ cases with a preceding negative screen and 787 controls, a re-evaluation of smears was undertaken to uncover false negative screening tests. Performance parameters and rates of CIN3+ after a negative screen were analysed for interlaboratory heterogeneity. RESULTS: The rates of follow-up recommendations and referrals varied by up to 3.6- (2.8-10.2%) and 4.0-fold (0.03-0.12%), respectively. CIN1, CIN2 and CIN3+ screen detection rates differed by up to 8.5- (0.02-0.17%), 5.4- (0.05-0.25%) and 3.3-fold (0.05-0.18%). False negative rates determined by re-evaluation showed up to 2.1-fold differences (29-62%). Rates of CIN3+ after a negative screen (0.023-0.048%) and as a proportion of total CIN3+ (15-31%) in the screened population were low and did not vary significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There were large variations in the sensitivity-specificity trade-off between laboratories, reflected in all performance indicators as well as in the test validity estimates of the re-evaluation phase, but not in screening effectiveness. Even though performance variations do not always have an impact on the effectiveness of screening, they lead to variations in cost, treatment and psychological burden, and should be addressed.

Routine cervical screening with primary HPV testing and cytology triage protocol in a randomised setting.

The role of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in primary cervical screening has not been established. We generated a randomised evaluation design ultimately to clarify whether primary hrHPV testing implemented into routine screening can bring increase in the programme effectiveness. The aim of the present report on first-year results was to assess the cross-sectional relative validity parameters for routine hrHPV screening, in comparison with conventional screening. An equal number of women invited to routine screening was randomly allocated to primary hrHPV screening (n=7060) and to cytological screening (n=7089). In the hrHPV screening arm, after a single positive hrHPV test result, the need of colposcopy referral was determined by a cytological triage test. Compared with the conventional arm, more colposcopy referrals were made in the hrHPV screening arm (relative risk 1.51, confidence interval 95% 1.03-2.22). Specificity of the primary screening with sole hrHPV test (91.5-92.1%) was much lower than that with the cytology triage (98.7-99.3%), which was not quite as specific as screening with conventional cytology (99.2-99.6%). Compared with conventional cytology, primary screening with hrHPV test results in increased cross-sectional relative sensitivity at the level of all positive lesions at the cost of substantial loss in specificity. With cytology triage, the specificity improves to the level of conventional cytology.