Primary cervical screening with high risk human papillomavirus testing: observational study
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 6 February 2019
- Vol. 364, l240
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l240
Abstract
Objective To provide the first report on the main outcomes from the prevalence and incidence rounds of a large pilot of routine primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in England, compared with contemporaneous primary liquid based cytology screening. Design Observational study. Setting The English Cervical Screening Programme. Participants 578 547 women undergoing cervical screening in primary care between May 2013 and December 2014, with follow-up until May 2017; 183 970 (32%) were screened with hrHPV testing. Interventions Routine cervical screening with hrHPV testing with liquid based cytology triage and two early recalls for women who were hrHPV positive and cytology negative, following the national screening age and interval recommendations. Main outcome measures Frequency of referral for a colposcopy; adherence to early recall; and relative detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse from hrHPV testing compared with liquid based cytology in two consecutive screening rounds. Results Baseline hrHPV testing and early recall required approximately 80% more colposcopies, (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 1.82), but detected substantially more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than liquid based cytology (1.49 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 1.43 to 1.55; 1.44 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, 1.36 to 1.51) and for cervical cancer (1.27, 0.99 to 1.63). Attendance at early recall and colposcopy referral were 80% and 95%, respectively. At the incidence screen, the 33 506 women screened with hrHPV testing had substantially less cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse than the 77 017 women screened with liquid based cytology (0.14, 0.09 to 0.23). Conclusions In England, routine primary hrHPV screening increased the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer by approximately 40% and 30%, respectively, compared with liquid based cytology. The very low incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse after three years supports extending the screening interval.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cervical cancer screening by high risk HPV testing in routine practice: results at one year recall of high risk HPV-positive and cytology-negative womenJournal of Medical Screening, 2014
- Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trialsThe Lancet, 2013
- Use of a high‐risk human papillomavirus DNA test as the primary test in a cervical cancer screening programme: a population‐based cohort studyBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2013
- High‐risk HPV testing on self‐sampled versus clinician‐collected specimens: A review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screeningInternational Journal of Cancer, 2012
- Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2012
- Review of cytology and histopathology as part of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme audit of invasive cervical cancersCytopathology, 2012
- Restriction of human papillomavirus DNA testing in primary cervical screening to women above age 30European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2012
- A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: Extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trialEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 2011
- Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2010
- Human Papillomavirus and Papanicolaou Tests to Screen for Cervical CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007