A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The additional sensitivity of HPV testing compared with cytology could permit extended cervical screening intervals. We wished to determine, through a further (third) round of screening in the ARTISTIC trial, the protection provided by a negative baseline HPV screen compared with that of cytology over a 6 year period. METHODS: Cumulative rates of CIN2 or worse (CIN2+) and CIN3 or worse (CIN3+) were correlated with baseline HPV status and cytology. HPV was detected using the Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen) assay for high risk types and genotyped using the Linear Array (Roche) and Papillocheck (Greiner) assays. LBC was performed using ThinPrep (Hologic). FINDINGS: Round 3 included 8,873 women of whom 6,337 had been screened in both rounds 1 and 2 and 2,536 had not been screened since round 1. The median duration of follow-up was 72.7 months. The cumulative rate of CIN2+ over three rounds was 3.88% (95%CI 3.59%, 4.17%) overall; 2.39% in round 1, 0.78% in round 2 and 0.74% in round 3. Cumulative rates by baseline status were 20.53% (95%CI 19.04%, 22.08%) for abnormal cytology, 20.12% (95%CI 18.68%, 21.61%) for HPV detection, 1.41% (95%CI 1.19%, 1.65%) for negative cytology and 0.87% (95%CI 0.70%, 1.06%) for a negative HPV test. In HPV negative women aged over 50 the cumulative rate was 0.16% (95%CI 0.07%, 0.34%). Women who were HPV positive/cytology negative at entry had a cumulative CIN2+ rate of 7.73% (95%CI 6.29%, 9.36%) over 6 years, twice the overall rate. INTERPRETATION: A negative HPV test was significantly more protective than normal cytology over three rounds. The findings of this extension of ARTISTIC suggest that the screening interval could be extended to 6 years if HPV testing replaced cytology as the primary screening test.

Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard for reading cervical cytology is for a cytoscreener to manually search across an entire slide for abnormal cells using a conventional microscope. Automated technology can select fields of view to assess abnormal cells, which allows targeted reading by cytoscreeners. In the Manual Assessment Versus Automated Reading In Cytology (MAVARIC) trial, we compared the accuracy of these techniques for the detection of underlying disease. METHODS: For this randomised controlled trial, women aged 25-64 years undergoing primary cervical screening in Manchester, UK, were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive either manual reading only or paired reading (automation-assisted reading and manual reading), between March 1, 2006, and Feb 28, 2009. In the paired arm, two automated systems were used-the ThinPrep Imaging System and the FocalPoint GS Imaging System. General practices and community clinics were randomised to either ThinPrep or to SurePath (for the FocalPoint system) liquid-based cytology with block randomisation stratified by deprivation index. Samples were then individually randomised to manual reading only or paired reading only. Laboratory staff were unaware of the allocation of each slide and concealment was maintained until the end of the reporting process. The primary outcome was sensitivity of automation-assisted reading relative to manual reading for the detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) in the paired arm. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN66377374. FINDINGS: 73,266 liquid-based cytology samples were obtained from women undergoing primary cervical screening; 24,688 allocated to the manual-only arm and 48,578 to the paired-reading arm. Automation-assisted reading was 8% less sensitive than manual reading (relative sensitivity 0·92, 95% CI 0·89-0·95), which was equivalent to an absolute reduction in sensitivity of 6·3%, assuming the sensitivity of manual reading to be 79%. Specificity of automation-assisted reading relative to manual reading increased by 0·6% (1·006, 95% CI 1·005-1·007). INTERPRETATION: The inferior sensitivity of automation-assisted reading for the detection of CIN2+, combined with an inconsequential increase in specificity, suggests that automation-assisted reading cannot be recommended for primary cervical screening.

HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is reportedly more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The effectiveness of HPV testing in primary cervical screening was assessed in the ARTISTIC trial, which was done over two screening rounds approximately 3 years apart (2001-03 and 2004-07) by comparing liquid-based cytology (LBC) combined with HPV testing against LBC alone. METHODS: Women aged 20-64 years who were undergoing routine screening as part of the English National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme in Greater Manchester were randomly assigned (between July, 2001, and September, 2003) in a ratio of 3:1 to either combined LBC and HPV testing in which the results were revealed and acted on, or to combined LBC and HPV testing where the HPV result was concealed from the patient and investigator. The primary outcome was the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in the second screening round, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN25417821. FINDINGS: There were 24 510 eligible women at entry (18 386 in the revealed group, 6124 in the concealed group). In the first round of screening 233 women (1.27%) in the revealed group had CIN3+, compared with 80 (1.31%) women in the concealed group (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.25; p>0.2). There was an unexpectedly large drop in the proportion of women with CIN3+ between the first and second rounds of screening in both groups, at 0.25% (29 of 11 676) in the revealed group and 0.47% (18 of 3866 women) in the concealed group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.96; p=0.042). For both rounds combined, the proportion of women with CIN3+ were 1.51% (revealed) and 1.77% (concealed) (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.08; p>0.2). INTERPRETATION: LBC combined with HPV testing resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of CIN3+ in the second round of screening compared with LBC screening alone, but the effect was small. Over the two screening rounds combined, co-testing did not detect a higher rate of CIN3+ or CIN2+ than LBC alone. Potential changes in screening methodology should be assessed over at least two screening rounds. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The pathway to induced abortion: women's experiences and general practitioner attitudes.

OBJECTIVE: Secondary care services are struggling to manage demand for induced abortion, but less is known about what scope exists to improve the primary care of women requiring abortion. The study objective was to identify service-related delays and barriers faced by women seeking abortion care. METHODS: The study comprised case note review and cross-sectional surveys conducted in South Durham in the North East of England, UK. We surveyed and reviewed the case notes of women attending two fertility control clinics. We also surveyed general practitioners (GPs) who referred women to these clinics. The outcomes were waiting times within the pathway to induced abortion, women's rating of care, GPs' attitudes and self-reported practice. RESULTS: Of 210 women surveyed, 132 (63%) responded. Of 107 referred by GPs, 16 (15%) had to make a second appointment with another GP willing to refer them and 34 (32%) waited two or more days to receive a date for their hospital appointment. The national standard waiting time of 3 weeks from first appointment with the referring doctor to the procedure was achieved for 56/127 women (44%; 95% CI, 35-53). Women rated global satisfaction, provision of information and staff interaction more highly in secondary than primary care. Of 170 GPs surveyed, 140 (82%) responded; 33 (24%) considered themselves 'broadly anti-abortion'. CONCLUSIONS: Women face delays in accessing induced abortion care, both before and after referral from primary care. Whilst scope exists for improving quality of care and access within present service configurations, alternative approaches that bypass traditional gatekeepers to abortion care should be evaluated.