A systematic review of randomized trials assessing human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening

University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.7). 11/2012; 208(5). DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.013
Source: PubMed


Our objective was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in randomized trials. We conducted a systematic literature search of the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane. Eligible studies were randomized trials comparing HPV-based to cytology-based screening strategies, with disease status determined by colposcopy/biopsy for participants with positive results. Disease rates (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN]2+ and 3+), sensitivity and positive predictive value were abstracted or calculated from the articles. Six studies met inclusion criteria. Relative sensitivities for detecting CIN3+ of HPV testing-based strategies versus cytology ranged from 0.8-2.1. The main limitation of our study was that testing methodologies and screening/management protocols were highly variable across studies. Screening strategies in which a single initial HPV-positive test led to colposcopy were more sensitive than cytology, but resulted in higher colposcopy rates. These results have implications for co-testing with HPV and cytology as recommended in the U.S.

1 Follower
6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is no cure currently available for HPV infections, although ablative and excisional treatments of some dysplasias often result in a clinical and virological cure. Effective control measures of HPV-associated cancers rely on the prevention at four different levels. Apart from sexual abstinence, primary prevention is realized through vaccines targeting the most frequent HPV types: negative attitudes towards HPV vaccination and high costs are the main obstacles. The aim of secondary prevention is to detect precancerous changes before they develop into invasive cancer, while tertiary prevention involves actual treatment of high-grade lesions: in many countries routine screening with cytology is being challenged with HPV DNA testing. Quaternary prevention comprehends those actions adopted to mitigate or avoid unnecessary or excessive medical interventions, and may well be addressed in avoiding treatments for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. Though some gynecologists commonly recommend treatment for low-grade disease and women tend to prefer active management if not properly informed, harms arising from unnecessary treatments, increased costs, work overload for second-level health services, and induced psychosocial distress are causing on-going problems. Prevention efforts of genital HPV-associated cancers should concentrate in: (1) enhancing primary prevention through vaccination of all eligible subjects, (2) achieving high levels of adherence to routine screening programs, (3) treating precancerous lesions, and (4) monitoring current guidelines recommendations to avoid overtreatments. Novel research projects should be designed to study the delicate mechanisms of immune response to HPV.
    Archives of Gynecology 08/2013; 288(5). DOI:10.1007/s00404-013-3011-9 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical cancer ranks third in prevalence and fourth as cause of death in women worldwide. In Brazil, 17,540 women were diagnosed in 2012 with the disease. Persistent infection with high-risk HPV types is a necessary condition for the development of pre-invasive and invasive cervical neoplasia. Currently, over 100 HPV types have been identified, but HPV16 and 18 are recognized as the mayor culprits in cervical carcinogenesis. Our objective was to assess the relationships between single- (ST) and multiple-type (MT) HPV infections with patients' age and lesion pathological status. 328 patients with either squamous or glandular intraepithelial or invasive cervical lesion were selected. All subjects were tested for HPV genotypes with reverse hybridization for 21 high- (hr-HPV) and 16 low-risk (lr-HPV) probes. Prevalence of ST and MT HPV infections was compared across histological types and age strata. 287 (87%) women had at least one HPV type detected and 149 (52%) had MT infections. The most prevalent HPV type was HPV16, present in 142 cases (49% of all HPV-positive cases), followed by HPV58, 52, 31, 35 and 33. HPV18, in single or multiple infections, occurred in 23 cases (8% of hr-HPV cases). Almost all glandular lesions were associated with HPV16 and 18 alone. Multiple infections were significantly more prevalent in squamous than in glandular lesion for HPV16 and 18 (P = 0.04 and 0.03 respectively). The prevalence of MT infections followed a bimodal distribution; peaking in women younger 29 years and in those aged 50 to 59. Our data indicate that prevention strategies for pre-invasive and invasive squamous lesions should be focused on HPV16 and a few alpha-9 HPV types. It is clear to us that in young women, prophylaxis must cover a large amalgam of HPV types beyond classic HPV16 and 18.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 04/2014; 14(1):214. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-14-214 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To compare cervical careHPV screening in a rural community setting with other methods of cervical screening for the detection of high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN). Study design: Cross-sectional study. All ever-married women aged 30–59 years surveyed in an administrative area of Uttar Pradesh, India were targeted for screening by careHPV (cervical and vaginal samples), Pap test and visual inspection of the cervix following application of acetic acid (VIA). Women who screened positive were referred for colposcopy and the results were confirmed histologically. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values for the detection of histological CINII+ and CINIII+ were assessed for each screening test. Results Sixty-five percent (5032/7704) of the women invited for cervical screening agreed to participate in the study. Screen-positive rates for cervical careHPV, vaginal careHPV, Pap test and VIA were 3%, 2%, 3% and 6%, respectively. Data for women who did not complete all screening modes, women lost to follow-up and women with missing histological results were excluded before data analysis, resulting in a final sample size of 4658. Cervical careHPV had high sensitivity (85%) for the detection of CINIII+ lesions and moderate sensitivity (53%) for the detection of CINII+ lesions. Sensitivities for the detection of CINIII+ and CINII+ were 54% and 41% for vaginal careHPV, 62% and 44% for Pap test, and 8% and 22% for VIA, respectively. Conclusion Cervical careHPV testing is superior to VIA and Pap test for the detection of high-grade CIN in a rural community setting.
    European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 05/2014; 176(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.03.006 · 1.70 Impact Factor
Show more