HPV triage for low grade (L-SIL) cytology is appropriate for women over 35 in mass cervical cancer screening using liquid based cytology.

In the experimental arm of a randomised trial, women were tested both for liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and referred for colposcopy if cytology was ASCUS (atypical cells of undetermined significance) or more severe. We considered those with ASCUS (757) or LSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions) (485) and a valid HPV test who received colposcopy. We computed sensitivity, specificity and ROC curves with different values of relative light units (RLU, that are related to viral load) as cut off, using cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+) at blind histology review as the endpoint. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was significantly less among women aged 25-34 years than in those older, both considering ASCUS/AGUS (atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance) (p=0.0355) and LSIL (p=0.0009). At age 35-60 the curves for ASCUS and LSIL were similar, while at age 25-34 the area under the curve for LSIL was significantly less than for ASCUS (p=0.0084). With LSIL cytology, specificity of Hybrid Capture 2 with 2 RLU cut-off was 35.0% (95%CI 28.4-42.1) at age 25-34 and 64.5% (95%CI 58.3-70.3) at age 35-60. In conclusion, triaging by HPV testing performed better in women aged over 35 years than those younger. For older women, HPV triaging should also be considered for managing those with LSIL cytology.

Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than cytology alone for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), studies comparing conventional and liquid-based cytology have had conflicting results. METHODS: In the first phase of a two-phase multicenter randomized controlled trial, women aged 35-60 years in the conventional arm (n = 16,658) were screened using conventional cytology, and women in the experimental arm (n = 16,706) had liquid-based cytology and were tested for high-risk HPV types using the Hybrid Capture 2 assay. Women in the conventional arm were referred to colposcopy with atypical cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or higher and those in the experimental arm were referred with ASCUS or higher cytology or with a positive (> or = 1 pg/mL) HPV test. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) were calculated. RESULTS: The screening methods and referral criterion applied in the experimental arm had higher sensitivity than that in the conventional arm (relative sensitivity = 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 2.09) but a lower PPV (relative PPV = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.66). With HPV testing alone at > or = 1 pg/mL and at > or = 2 pg/mL, the gain in sensitivity compared with the conventional arm remained similar (relative sensitivity = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.04 and relative sensitivity = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.01, respectively) but PPV progressively improved (relative PPV = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.98 and relative PPV = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.45 and 1.27, respectively). Referral based on liquid-based cytology alone did not increase sensitivity compared with conventional cytology (relative sensitivity = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.55) but reduced PPV (relative PPV = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: HPV testing alone was more sensitive than conventional cytology among women 35-60 years old. Adding liquid-based cytology improved sensitivity only marginally but increased false-positives. HPV testing using Hybrid Capture 2 with a 2 pg/mL cutoff may be more appropriate than a 1 pg/mL cutoff for primary cervical cancer screening.