Results at Recruitment From a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone With Conventional Cytology as the Primary Cervical Cancer Screening Test
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 25 March 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 100 (7) , 492-501
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn065
Abstract
In the first recruitment phase of a randomized trial of cervical cancer screening methods (New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening [NTCC] study), we compared screening with conventional cytology with screening by human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in combination with liquid-based cytology. HPV-positive women were directly referred to colposcopy if aged 35 or older; if younger, they were retested after 1 year. In the second recruitment phase of NTCC, we randomly assigned women to conventional cytology (n = 24661) with referral to colposcopy if cytology indicated atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more severe abnormality or to testing for high-risk HPV DNA alone by Hybrid Capture 2 (n = 24535) with referral to colposcopy if the test was positive at a concentration of HPV DNA 1 pg/mL or greater. For the main endpoint of the study, histologic detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more (CIN2+), we calculated and compared sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the two screening methods using HPV DNA cutoffs of 1 pg/mL and 2 pg/mL. All statistical tests were two-sided. For women aged 35–60 years, the relative sensitivity of HPV testing for detection of CIN2+ at a cutoff of 1 pg/mL vs conventional cytology was 1.92 (95% CI = 1.28 to 2.87) and the relative PPV was 0.80 (95% CI = 0.55 to 1.18). At a cutoff of 2 pg/mL HPV DNA, the relative sensitivity was 1.81 (95% CI = 1.20 to 2.72) and the relative PPV was 0.99 (95% CI = 0.67 to 1.46). In this age group, there was no evidence of heterogeneity between study phases. Among women aged 25–34 years, the relative sensitivity for detection of CIN2+ of HPV testing at a cutoff of 1 pg/mL vs cytology was 3.50 (95% CI = 2.11 to 5.82), statistically significantly larger ( P = .019) than that observed in phase 1 at this age (1.58; 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.44). For women aged 35–60 years, HPV testing with a cutoff of 2 pg/mL achieves a substantial gain in sensitivity over cytology with only a small reduction in PPV. Among women aged 25–34 years, the large relative sensitivity of HPV testing compared with conventional cytology and the difference between relative sensitivity during phases 1 and 2 suggests that there is frequent regression of CIN2+ that are detected by direct referral of younger HPV-positive women to colposcopy. Thus, triage test or repeat testing is needed if HPV is to be used for primary testing in this context.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART studyThe Lancet, 2003
- Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patientsBritish Journal of Cancer, 2003
- Evaluation of Human Papillomavirus Testing in Primary Screening for Cervical AbnormalitiesJAMA, 2002
- Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 womenBritish Journal of Cancer, 2001
- Screening for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia and cancer by testing for high-risk HPV, routine cytology or colposcopyInternational Journal of Cancer, 2000
- Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settingsCancer, 2000
- HPV DNA Testing in Cervical Cancer ScreeningJAMA, 2000
- HPV testing in primary screening of older womenBritish Journal of Cancer, 1999
- Hybrid Capture II-based human papillomavirus detection, a sensitive test to detect in routine high-grade cervical lesions: a preliminary study on 1518 womenBritish Journal of Cancer, 1999
- Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screeningThe Lancet, 1995