Livmorhalsprøvetaking i primærhelsetjenesten.

BACKGROUND: In Norway, approximately 360 000 cervical screening samples were taken in 2020, of which 11 000 were registered as inadequate. We therefore wished to investigate doctors' knowledge of cervical sample-taking in the primary health service. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An anonymous survey on cervical sample-taking was sent by email to around 4 700 members of the Norwegian College of General Practice in September 2021. RESULTS: Of the 1 039 doctors who responded to the survey, 820 (79 %) reported that they always indicate the reason for taking the sample in the requisition form, and 898 (86 %) reported that they avoid taking a sample during menstruation. Only one in three doctors (343) correctly indicated the location of the squamocolumnar junction in postmenopausal women. In response to a question aimed at users of the ThinPrep method, which is particularly sensitive to sampling errors, 426 out of 697 (61 %) answered that they either avoid using a lubricant or use a water-based lubricant, while only 35 % of the doctors responded that they stop taking the sample if bleeding occurs. INTERPRETATION: The results show that although many doctors have satisfactory knowledge, a continuous focus on cervical sample-taking is essential. Correct sampling and knowledge of anatomical factors in postmenopausal women may be significant for reducing the number of inadequate samples.

Randomized Implementation of a Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing-based Cervical Cancer Screening Protocol for Women 34 to 69 Years in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening programs are facing a programmatic shift where screening protocol based on human papillomavirus testing (HPV-Screening protocol) is replacing the liquid-based cytology (LBC-Screening protocol). For safe technology transfer within the nationwide screening programme in Norway, HPV-Screening protocol was implemented randomized to compare the real-world effectiveness of HPV-Screening protocol and LBC-Screening protocol at the first screening round. METHODS: Among 302,295 women ages 34 to 69 years scheduled to attend screening from February 2015 to June 2017, 157,447 attended. A total of 77,207 were randomly allocated to the HPV-Screening protocol and 80,240 were allocated to the LBC-Screening protocol. All women were followed up for 18 months. RESULTS: The HPV-Screening protocol resulted in a relative increase of 60% in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse [risk ratio (RR) = 1.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.5-1.7], 40% in CIN grade 3 or worse (RR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3-1.6), 40% in cancer (RR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.0-2.1), and 60% in colposcopy referrals (RR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5-1.6) compared with LBC-Screening. The performance of both protocols was age dependent, being more effective in women ages under 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: The HPV-Screening protocol was well accepted by women in Norway and detected more CIN2, CIN3, and cancers compared with the LBC-Screening protocol. IMPACT: A randomized implementation of the HPV-Screening protocol with real-world assessment enabled a gradual, quality assured, and safe technology transition. HPV-based screening protocol may further be improved by using HPV genotyping and age-specific referral algorithms.

Recommendations of the European Advisory Committee of Cytotechnology and European Federation of Cytology Societies for Training and Education of Cytotechnologists in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Faced with changes in cytodiagnostics, cervical cancer screening programs, the introduction and application of new methods, the cytotechnological educational program requires the necessary changes and additions. Insufficient, uneven as well as inaccessible education of cytotechnologists in European countries was the basis for making these recommendations. SUMMARY: The results of previous research and publications related to the currently available education of cytotechnologists in Europe, the needs and suggestions were given by the European Advisory Committee of Cytotechnology (EACC) and European Federation of Cytology Societies (EFCS) for optimal education of future generations of cytotechnologists were used in the preparation of these recommendations. The EACC and EFCS propose a 1-year education and training program divided into 3 modules: gynecological, nongynecological exfoliative, and fine-needle aspiration cytology. Training programs should be organized by an accredited university, preferably a combination of internal education in a cytology laboratory and theoretical education at the university. Cytopathologists and cytotechnologists with at least 5 years of work experience in cytodiagnostics should participate in education. Upon completion of the training program, the EACC and EFCS propose an official name: EFCS certified cytotechnologist. Key Messages: The EACC and EFCS believe that it is extremely important that these recommendations are recognized and implemented by institutions that provide education for cytotechnologists so that they can meet the growing requirements of the profession with their acquired knowledge and competencies.

Clinical performance of Anyplex II HPV28 by human papillomavirus type and viral load in a referral population.

Anyplex II HPV28 (`Anyplex`) is a semi-quantitative DNA PCR assay divided into set A, comprising 14 high risk (hr)HPV types; and set B, comprising 5 possibly hrHPV types and 9 low risk (lr)HPV types. We compared the ability of Anyplex to that of Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) and PreTect HPV-Proofer (`Proofer`) to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or worse (CIN2+) by HPV types and viral load. This cross-sectional study included 296 women referred to colposcopy with abnormal cervical cytology and/or persistent HPV infection. CIN2+ was identified in 175/296 women. Liquid based cytology samples were used to perform HPV testing. The sensitivity of Anyplex to detect CIN2+ was 98.9% (95% CI 95.9-99.9) and specificity 43.0% (95% CI 34.0-52.3). Restricting to medium and high viral loads in Anyplex set A, sensitivity and specificity were 97.1% (95% CI 93.5-99.1) and 59.5% (95% CI 50.2-68.3) with positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) 77.6% and 93.5%, respectively, comparable to HC2. Restricting Anyplex to the hrHPV types in Proofer, HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, sensitivity and specificity for CIN2+ were 85.1% (95% CI 79.0-90.1) and 71.1% (95% CI 62.1-79.0), comparable to Proofer`s. When adding HPV52 and 58, the sensitivity for CIN2+ was 92.6% (95% CI 87.6-96.0) and CIN3+ 96.5% (95% CI 92.0-98.8). No value of Anyplex set B was found in detecting CIN2+. In conclusion, the clinical performance of medium and high viral loads in Anyplex set A was comparable to HC2. Restricting the test to the 7 hrHPV types included in the 9-valent HPV-vaccine, HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, satisfies the international criteria for cervical cancer screening with relative sensitivity compared to HC2 for CIN2+ and CIN3+ of 0.98 and 1.01, respectively. Detecting all 28 Anyplex HPV types adds no benefit in a referral population.

HPV detection methods and genotyping techniques in screening for cervical cancer.

Human papillomaviruses (HPV), double-stranded DNA viruses, are causing many mucocutaneous diseases, benign or malignant, ranging from common warts to malignancies involving the upper aerodigestive tract and the anogenital sphere. The diagnosis of HPV infection is based primarily on the viral genome detection by molecular biological methods, given the difficulty in routine cultivation of these viruses. The current trend in screening against cervical cancer is to improve the sensitivity of screening with new methods and to propose new algorithms for diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. The development of liquid-based cytology facilitates the cytologic diagnosis and molecular assays from the same sample. There are two main types of HPV detection methods used on uterine cervical samples: signal amplification methods (hybridization techniques in liquid phase) and target amplification methods (the techniques of gene amplification or Polymerase Chain Reaction [PCR]). Genotyping techniques are also developed: they are based on an amplification technique followed by hybridization with probe specific types. In addition to the detection, genotyping techniques allow quantitative detection of viral DNA of HPV genotype and so monitor changes in viral load over time. Another approach relies on the detection of messenger RNA (mRNA) of HPV proteins E6 and E7 oncogenes, which would appear to be a relevant marker to identify and monitor women at risk of progression to a precancerous lesion or cervical cancer.