hr-HPV testing in the management of women with ASC-US+ and in the follow-up of women with cytological abnormalities and negative colposcopy. Recommendations of the Italian group for cervical cancer screening (GISCi).

Compared to spontaneous screening, an organized screening programme is characterized by the presence of protocols and recommendations for all stages including follow-up. Despite the availability of well-functioning screening programmes throughout the country, the follow-up protocol after an abnormal Pap test and negative colposcopy is not clearly defined in Italy, and there is no uniformity of indications. HPV testing for oncogenic human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) has a high negative predictive value (NPV) and high positive predictive value (PPV) for CIN2+ and its employment can reduce follow-up assessments. In order to provide indications about the management of women with ASC-US+ and the follow-up of women with cytological abnormalities and negative colposcopy, a literature analysis was carried out, taking into consideration European and American guidelines and good practice recommendations from the most important scientific associations and regulatory agencies. GISCi (Italian Group for Cervical Screening) drafted recommendations for the management of women with ASC-US, L-SIL, ASC-H, AGC, and H-SIL until their return to the routine screening interval. This protocol can be applied not only in the management of abnormal Pap smears in cytology-based programmes, but also in the management of abnormal Pap test triage after HPV positive test when HPV is the primary screening test. The protocols approved within the screening programmes must have an extensive consensus among all involved professionals, including any that women might meet outside the programme.

Informed cytology for triaging HPV-positive women: substudy nested in the NTCC randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening needs triage. In most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on HPV testing with cytological triage, cytology interpretation has been blind to HPV status. METHODS: Women age 25 to 60 years enrolled in the New Technology in Cervical Cancer (NTCC) RCT comparing HPV testing with cytology were referred to colposcopy if HPV positive and, if no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was detected, followed up until HPV negativity. Cytological slides taken at the first colposcopy were retrieved and independently interpreted by an external laboratory, which was only aware of patients' HPV positivity. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were computed for histologically proven CIN2+ with HPV status-informed cytology for women with a determination of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or more severe. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among HPV-positive women, informed cytology had cross-sectional sensitivity, specificity, PPV and 1-NPV for CIN2+ of 85.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 76.6 to 92.1), 65.9% (95% CI = 63.1 to 68.6), 16.2% (95% CI = 13.0 to 19.8), and 1.7 (95% CI = 0.9 to 2.8), respectively. Cytology was also associated with subsequent risk of newly diagnosed CIN2+ and CIN3+. The cross-sectional relative sensitivity for CIN2+ vs blind cytology obtained by referring to colposcopy and following up only HPV positive women who had HPV status-informed cytology greater than or equal to ASCUS was 1.58 (95% CI = 1.22 to 2.01), while the corresponding relative referral to colposcopy was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.04). CONCLUSIONS: Cytology informed of HPV positivity is more sensitive than blind cytology and could allow longer intervals before retesting HPV-positive, cytology-negative women.

HPV testing is an efficient management choice for women with inadequate liquid-based cytology in cervical cancer screening.

This study compares colposcopy referrals of 2 management strategies: oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA testing (Hybrid Capture 2 assay, Qiagen, Germantown, MD) and repeat cytology. In the New Technology in Cervical Cancer Trial, 22,708 subjects were randomly assigned to undergo both HPV and liquid-based cytologic testing. Women aged 35 to 60 years old with unsatisfactory cytologic findings were directly referred for colposcopy if the HPV test result was positive, and were referred for repeat cytologic examination if the HPV test result was negative; women aged 25 to 35 years old were referred for repeat cytologic examination independent of HPV test results. A positive or a second unsatisfactory cytologic examination referred women for colposcopy. Five hundred sixty women had unsatisfactory cytologic findings. Colposcopy referral was not significant and slightly higher with HPV testing than repeat cytologic test (9.8% vs 6.8%, P = .11). When cytologic testing was repeated 36.8% were unavailable for follow-up and most of the colposcopies were performed in HPV-negative women. For unsatisfactory cytologic findings, HPV triage is a more logical and efficient management strategy than a repeat cytologic test.

Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of conventional cytology with liquid based cytology for primary screening of cervical cancer. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Nine screening programmes in Italy. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 25-60 attending for a new screening round: 22 466 were assigned to the conventional arm and 22 708 were assigned to the experimental arm. INTERVENTIONS: Conventional cytology compared with liquid based cytology and testing for human papillomavirus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more at blindly reviewed histology, with atypical cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology considered a positive result. RESULTS: In an intention to screen analysis liquid based cytology showed no significant increase in sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more (relative sensitivity 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.56) whereas the positive predictive value was reduced (relative positive predictive value v conventional cytology 0.58, 0.44 to 0.77). Liquid based cytology detected more lesions of grade 1 or more (relative sensitivity 1.68, 1.40 to 2.02), with a larger increase among women aged 25-34 (P for heterogeneity 0.0006), but did not detect more lesions of grade 3 or more (relative sensitivity 0.84, 0.56 to 1.25). Results were similar when only low grade intraepithelial lesions or more severe cytology were considered a positive result. No evidence was found of heterogeneity between centres or of improvement with increasing time from start of the study. The relative frequency of women with at least one unsatisfactory result was lower with liquid based cytology (0.62, 0.56 to 0.69). CONCLUSION: Liquid based cytology showed no statistically significant difference in sensitivity to conventional cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more. More positive results were found, however, leading to a lower positive predictive value. A large reduction in unsatisfactory smears was evident. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81678807 [controlled-trials.com].

Reproducibility of HPV DNA Testing by Hybrid Capture 2 in a Screening Setting.

Within a large Italian randomized trial on new technologies for cervical cancer screening involving 7 laboratories with different levels of experience, an intralaboratory and interlaboratory quality control program for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing by Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2; Digene, Gaithersburg, MD) was implemented. To monitor the hybridization and detection steps, target samples containing purified, concentration-defined, HPV DNA were introduced in each test run. Only 3 of 1,024 showed a mistake in a positive vs negative classification with a 1 relative light unit (RLU)/positive control specimen (PC) ratio cutoff. To monitor the preanalytic steps (particularly denaturation), blinded specimens (33 collected in PreservCyt (Cytyc, Boxborough, MA) and 36 in Specimen Transport Medium (STM, Digene) were centrally prepared, divided into aliquots, and sent to each laboratory. The multiple-rater scores for negative (<1 RLU/PC), low-positive (1 to <11 RLU/PC), and high-positive (> or =11 RLU/PC) samples, respectively, were 0.91, 0.60, and 0.69 with PreservCyt and 0.93, 0.87, and 0.90 with STM. Our data showed high reliability and reproducibility with HC2, with values higher for STM than ThinPrep (Cytyc) samples.