Routine cervical screening by primary HPV testing: early findings in the renewed National Cervical Screening Program.

OBJECTIVES: To report human papillomavirus (HPV) testing patterns and rates of oncogenic HPV-positivity for specimens submitted during the first 6 months after the National Cervical Screening Program switched from cytology- to primary HPV-based screening. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional review of 195 606 specimens submitted for HPV testing, 1 December 2017 - 31 May 2018. SETTING: Large community-based general pathology laboratory in metropolitan Sydney. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of oncogenic HPV types (all, HPV16/18, non-HPV16/18) by reason for HPV test (primary screening, non-screening); for oncogenic HPV-positive women in the age band recommended for primary HPV screening (25-74 years), prevalence of cytologic abnormality and rates of 12-month follow-up and colposcopy recommendations. RESULTS: 195 606 samples were received: 157 700 (80.6%) for primary screening, 37 906 (19.4%) for non-screening tests. Oncogenic HPV was detected in 8.1% of screening tests (95% CI, 7.9-8.2%) and 20.9% of non-screening tests (95% CI, 20.5-21.3%); 35.5% (95% CI, 34.7-36.4%) of women of recommended screening age with positive oncogenic HPV screening test results also had a cytologic abnormality. The proportion of HPV16/18-positive samples with high grade abnormality was 15.3% (95% CI, 14.2-16.6%); for samples positive for other oncogenic HPV types, the proportion was 6.3% (95% CI, 5.8-6.8%). Repeat HPV testing after 12 months was recommended for 5.4% (95% CI, 5.3-5.5%) and direct colposcopy for 2.6% (95% CI, 2.5-2.7%) of screened women aged 25-74 years. CONCLUSIONS: High grade cytologic abnormalities were more common in women positive for HPV16/18, supporting their higher risk classification. Colposcopy referral rates were higher than during primary cytology-based testing, as predicted by clinical trial and modelling data. The prevalence of HPV was much higher in non-screening than in primary screening samples. Our findings indicate the renewed program is performing as expected during the initial HPV screening round.

Is there a role for the thinprep imaging system in reporting anal cytology?

BACKGROUND: The ThinPrep Imaging System (TIS) is an accurate time-saving method of reading cervical ThinPrep slides in screening programs. As anal and cervical cytology are morphologically similar, TIS can potentially be used for anal cytology. We assessed the performance of TIS on anal ThinPrep slides from homosexual men in a natural history study of human papillomavirus-related anal abnormalities. METHODS: Four hundred nineteen anal cytology slides were processed by TIS and classified by a cytologist as either No further review (slide archived) or Manual review (slide requiring full manual screen). The results were compared with the original manual screening report for all slides and specifically for those screening episodes accompanied by a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) on concurrent biopsy. RESULTS: One hundred seventy six of 419 (42.0%) slides were classified as No further review, with a trend of decreasing proportions as the degree of severity of the cytological abnormality increased. Thirteen (27.7%) slides with an original unsatisfactory report were classified as No further review. Eighty two (92.1%) of those with biopsy HSIL and cytological abnormality were classified for Manual review, including all 45 (100%) with cytological HSIL. CONCLUSION: The cervical algorithm of TIS performed best on anal samples when HSIL was present both cytologically and histologically. The 27.7% unsatisfactory slides classified as No further review may indicate need for use of different criteria from cervical cytology. Because of the high prevalence of abnormalities, and hence the large proportion of slides needing manual review, the cytologist time-saving would compare unfavorably with use of TIS in cervical screening.

Cervical cytology reading times: a comparison between ThinPrep Imager and conventional methods.

We aimed to compare the times cytologists spend reviewing cervical cytology slides processed by the ThinPrep Imager (TPI) with times they spend examining conventional cytology (CC) slides. We also aimed to examine the effect of cytologists' experience on reading times. Using a cross-sectional analytical design, we analyzed routine laboratory data, collected retrospectively over 7 months, for 41 cytologists, including paired data for 20 who read both TPI and CC slides. For the 20 cytologists who read both types of cytology, the mean reading rate was 13.3 slides per hour for TPI slides and 6.1 slides per hour for CC slides. The mean within-reader difference between TPI and CC rates was 7.2 slides per hour (P < 0.001). For CC reading, mean times did not differ between those who were additionally trained to read TPI slides and those who only read CC. Slower readers had greater increases in speed when using the TPI compared with CC reading than did faster readers (P < 0.001). More experienced cytologists tended to read CC slides more quickly than did those less experienced, but experience did not affect TPI reading times or within-reader differences in reading times between cytology types. The TPI significantly reduced reading times compared with CC. This reduction was greater amongst slower readers, and was unrelated to experience.

Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of liquid based cytology using the computerised ThinPrep Imager with that of manually read conventional cytology. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Pathology laboratory in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 55,164 split sample pairs (liquid based sample collected after conventional sample from one collection) from consecutive samples of women choosing both types of cytology and whose specimens were examined between August 2004 and June 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was accuracy of slides for detecting squamous lesions. Secondary outcomes were rate of unsatisfactory slides, distribution of squamous cytological classifications, and accuracy of detecting glandular lesions. RESULTS: Fewer unsatisfactory slides were found for imager read cytology than for conventional cytology (1.8% v 3.1%; P<0.001). More slides were classified as abnormal by imager read cytology (7.4% v 6.0% overall and 2.8% v 2.2% for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 1 or higher). Among 550 patients in whom imager read cytology was cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or higher and conventional cytology was less severe than grade 1, 133 of 380 biopsy samples taken were high grade histology. Among 294 patients in whom imager read cytology was less severe than cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 and conventional cytology was grade 1 or higher, 62 of 210 biopsy samples taken were high grade histology. Imager read cytology therefore detected 71 more cases of high grade histology than did conventional cytology, resulting from 170 more biopsies. Similar results were found when one pathologist reread the slides, masked to cytology results. CONCLUSION: The ThinPrep Imager detects 1.29 more cases of histological high grade squamous disease per 1000 women screened than conventional cytology, with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 as the threshold for referral to colposcopy. More imager read slides than conventional slides were satisfactory for examination and more contained low grade cytological abnormalities.