4.7 Article

Primary HPV testing with cytology versus cytology alone in cervical screening-A prospective randomized controlled trial with two rounds of screening in a Chinese population

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 147, Issue 4, Pages 1152-1162

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32861

Keywords

HPV testing; co-testing; cervical cancer; cervical screening; CIN

Categories

Funding

  1. Wong Check She Charitable Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial with two screening rounds to evaluate the effectiveness of combining HPV testing with liquid-based cytology (LBC) as a co-test, compared to LBC only in cervical cancer screening of a Chinese population. First, 15,955 women aged 30-60 were randomized at a 1:1 ratio into an intervention group (Digene Hybrid Capture 2 HPV test with LBC) and a control group (LBC alone). Women in the intervention group would be referred for colposcopy and biopsy immediately if they were found to have high-risk HPV regardless of cytology results. The detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or above (CIN2+) lesions was significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control (0.95% vs. 0.38%, OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.65-3.88). At the subsequent round of screening approximately 36 months later, CIN2+ detection was significantly lower in the intervention group (0.08% vs. 0.35%, OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.57). Over the two rounds of screening, the total detection of CIN2+ was higher in the intervention group (1.01% vs. 0.66%, OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09-2.19). There was a fourfold increase (10.6% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001) in the number of colposcopies performed in the intervention arm. Adding a high-risk HPV test to cytology for primary cervical screening led to earlier detection of clinically significant preinvasive lesions, resulting in a reduced detection of CIN2+ lesions in subsequent rounds and an increased rate of colposcopy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available