Clinical Performance of Human Papillomavirus Testing and Visual Inspection With Acetic Acid in Primary, Combination, and Sequential Cervical Cancer Screening in China

Background World Health Organization guidelines recommend screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing followed by either treatment of all HPV-positives, or by visual inspection (VIA) for triage to treatment, citing insufficient evidence to recommend either strategy over the other. Methods We assessed VIA and HPV testing individually, in combination (HPV-VIA cotesting), and as triage models. Three thousand women were screened in Inner Mongolia, China, concurrently with HPV testing and VIA in a real population setting. Screen-positive women underwent colposcopy, and biopsy, if indicated. Accuracy of screening algorithms for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN-2+) was calculated after controlling for verification bias. HPV testing followed by VIA triage for CIN-2+ detection was compared with Hybrid Capture 2 viral loads triage, measured in relative light units/cutoff. Results CIN-2+ prevalence was 1.0%. Corrected sensitivity, false negative rate, and specificity for CIN-2+, respectively, for primary HPV testing were 89.7%, 10.3%, and 83.3%; 44.8%, 55.2%, and 92 center dot 3% for VIA; 93.1%, 6.9%, and 80.2% for HPV-VIA cotesting; and 41.4%, 58.6, and 95.4% for HPV with VIA triage scenarios. Using relative light units/cutoff of 5 or greater to triage HPV-positive women had twice the sensitivity as VIA triage, with comparable specificity for CIN-2+. Conclusions When VIA performs relatively poorly and HPV testing is available, adding VIA to sequential (ie, HPV followed by VIA triage) or primary (HPV-VIA cotesting) screening does not significantly improve CIN-2+ detection beyond primary HPV screening alone. Sequential screening (ie, HPV followed by VIA triage) reduces sensitivity too low for population-based screening programs. The HPV viral loads could offer an alternative low-resource country triage strategy.