Results at Recruitment From a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone With Conventional Cytology as the Primary Cervical Cancer Screening Test

Guglielmo Ronco(Piedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention), P. Giorgi-Rossi, Francesca Carozzi(Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica), Massimo Confortini(Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica), Paolo Palma(Provincia Autonoma di Trento), Annarosa Del Mistro(Istituto Oncologico Veneto), Anna Gillio‐Tos(University of Turin), D Minucci(Azienda Ospedale - Università Padova), Carlo Naldoni(Agenzia Regionale Prevenzione e Ambiente della Regione Emilia-Romagna), Raffaella Rizzolo(Piedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention), Patrizia Schincaglia(Istituto per lo Studio e la Prevenzione Oncologica), R Volante(Ospedale San Luigi Gonzaga), Marco Zappa, Manuel Zorzi, Jack Cuzick(Cancer Research UK), Nereo Segnan(Piedmont Reference Center for Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention), On behalf of the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening Working Group
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
March 25, 2008
Cited by 307Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: In the second recruitment phase of NTCC, we randomly assigned women to conventional cytology (n = 24,661) 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 = 24,535) 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.


Related Papers