How will transitioning from cytology to HPV testing change the balance between the benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening? Estimates of the impact on cervical cancer, treatment rates and adverse obstetric outcomes in Australia, a high vaccination coverage country

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.

Triaging HPV-Positive Cervical Samples with p16 and Ki-67 Dual Stained Cytology within an Organized Screening Program-A Prospective Observational Study from Western Norway

The implementation of high-risk human papillomavirus testing (hrHPV testing) as a screening method in substitute for cytology has evoked the need for more sensitive and less objective tests for the triage of HPV-positive women. In a cohort of 1763 HPV-positive women, the potential of immunocytochemical p16 and Ki-67 dual staining as compared to cytology, alone or in combination with HPV partial genotyping, was tested for triage of women attending a cervical cancer screening program. Performance was measured using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Comparisons were assessed using logistic regression models and the McNemar test. Dual staining was evaluated in a prospectively collected study cohort of 1763 HPV-screened women. For triage of CIN2+ and CIN3+, NPV and sensitivity, 91.8% and 94.2% versus 87.9% and 89.7%, respectively, were significantly higher using dual staining together with HPV 16/18 positive, as compared to cytology (p < 0.001). The specificities, however, were lower for dual staining as compared to cytology. Conclusions: Dual staining is safer for decision-making regarding HPV-positive women's need for follow-up with colposcopy and biopsy, as compared to cytology.

What do South Asian immigrant women know about HPV, cervical cancer and its early detection: A cross-sectional Australian study

•

Low HPV and cervical cancer knowledge levels among South Asian immigrant women.

•

One third participants aware of the renewed cervical screening program changes.

•

Screening uptake significantly associated with HPV and cervical cancer awareness.

•

GP discussion on the topic found to have important role in increasing knowledge.

Cervical cancer commonly caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV) imposes a significant burden in Asia. This study examined the awareness and knowledge of HPV, cervical cancer, and its early detection methods among South Asian immigrant women in Australia to determine factors associated with knowledge deficits. A cross-sectional internet-based survey was completed by a convenience sample of women (n=148), with South-Asian background, residing in Queensland during May-October 2019. Main outcome variables were awareness of HPV, cervical cancer, cervical screening test (Pap test and HPV test) and HPV test self-sampling availability (Yes/No). HPV and cervical cancer knowledge were assessed via 16-item and 20 item aggregated scales respectively, (higher scores indicating better knowledge). Five individual items queried knowledge of the Pap and HPV test, and one item actual cervical screening uptake. One-way ANOVA was used to study differences in HPV and cervical cancer knowledge among sociodemographic groups. Of 148 participating women, 55% (n=86) had heard of HPV, 77% (n=114) of cervical cancer and 81.8% (n=121) of Pap tests. Only one third of participants (n=49) were aware that now an HPV test is used for cervical screening and 10% (n=15) of its self-sampling availability, whereas 55.4% (n=82) reported participation in screening previously. The mean HPV knowledge score was 5.3 (S.D: 5.7) and mean cervical cancer knowledge score 9.8 (S.D: 6.5) with zero being the most common score on both scales. Higher knowledge scores were significantly associated with higher educational level, English language proficiency, discussion with a GP on the topic and previous participation in screening. The majority of participants lacked detailed knowledge about the available screening tests. This study identified key target groups for future interventions.

Predictors, barriers and motivating factors for human papillomavirus vaccination and testing as preventive measures for cervical cancer: A study of urban women in Lagos, Nigeria

•

Uptake of HPV vaccination & testing was abysmally low despite good knowledge of it.

•

Unvaccinated and untested women were more willing to accept HPV test than vaccination.

•

Knowing CC patient, being employed & unmarried predicted HPV vaccination & testing.

•

Recommendation by HCP & friend/relative were motivators for HPV vaccination & test.

•

Fear, cost & non-recommendation by HCP were barriers to HPV vaccination & testing.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and HPV based cervical screening are scientifically proven ways to prevent and eliminate cervical cancer (CC). Unfortunately, these measures are yet to be widely accepted or utilized. Our study aimed to explore the individual-related factors that predict HPV vaccination and testing, its motivating factors and barriers among urban women in Lagos, Nigeria. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study among 208 consenting women who attended a community health awareness program in Surulere, Lagos, Nigeria, in September 2019. Structured questionnaires were interviewer administered and analysis was done using SPSS version 23. The uptake of HPV vaccination and testing was 29.0% and 3.0% respectively. Being employed [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 60.45, CI = 10.64–343.46, P < 0.001] and unmarried (AOR = 33.33, CI = 12.5–100.0, P < 0.001) predicted HPV vaccination uptake while being unmarried was the only predictor of uptake of HPV testing [crude odds ratio (COR) = 7.69, CI = 1.01–100.00, P = 0.039]. Knowing someone with CC (AOR = 21.64, CI = 4.87–96.16, P < 0.001) and being unmarried (AOR = 5.56, CI = 1.45–20.00, P = 0.012) predicted increased willingness to be vaccinated. Being unmarried (AOR = 5.26, CI = 1.89–14.29, P = 0.002) and knowing someone with CC (AOR = 6.41, CI = 2.68–15.33, P < 0.001) predicted willingness to do HPV testing. Recommendation by healthcare provider (HCP), friends/relatives and media were major motivators for HPV vaccination & testing while fear, cost, no recommendation by HCP, inaccessibility & lack of awareness were major barriers. There is need to urgently address these identified factors that affect HPV vaccination and testing in order to improve its acceptability and uptake rate in our environment.

The impact of HPV vaccination beyond cancer prevention: effect on pregnancy outcomes

While the benefits of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination relating to cervical cancer prevention have been widely documented, recent published evidence is suggestive of an impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in vaccinated mothers and their infants, including a reduction in rates of preterm births and small for gestational age infants. In this review, we examine this evidence and the possible mechanisms by which HPV vaccination may prevent these APOs. Large-scale studies linking HPV vaccination status with birth registries are needed to confirm these results. Potential confounding factors to consider in future analyses include other risk factors for APOs, and historical changes in both the management of cervical precancerous lesions and prevention of APOs. If confirmed, these additional benefits of HPV vaccination in reducing APO rates will be of global significance, due to the substantial health, social and economic costs associated with APOs, strengthening the case for worldwide HPV immunization.

Comparison of Different HPV-based Strategies and Cytology in Routine Cervical Cancer Screening Programme in China: A Population-based Study

The study aimed to compare the performance of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based strategies to cytology for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in routine program in China. The study included 50,434 women ages 30-64 years from January 2015 to December 2019, to assess four strategies: cytology with HPV triage (strategy 1), primary HPV testing with reflex cytology (strategy 2), primary HPV testing with HPV-16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology for non-16-18 high-risk HPV genotypes (strategy 3), and co-testing (strategy 4). The main outcomes were sensitivity for CIN3+ and colposcopy referral rate. Overall, the rates of HPV positivity and cytologic abnormality were 7.0% [95% confidential interval (CI), 6.8-7.2] and 3.5% (95% CI, 3.3-3.6], respectively. The sensitivity for CIN3+ were 88.5% for strategy 4, 83.2% for strategy 3, 64.6% for strategy 1, and 60.1% for strategy 2. The relative sensitivity of strategy 4 and strategy 3 compared with strategy 1 for detecting CIN3+ were 1.38 (95% CI, 1.24-1.54) and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.14-1.46), respectively. The colposcopy referral rates of strategies 4 and 3 were significantly higher than that of strategy 1 (2.4% and 2.2% vs. 1.4%, P < 0.001). In conclusion, co-testing and primary HPV testing with HPV-16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology improved the sensitivity for CIN3+ compared with cytology but increased the colposcopy referral rate. Long-term negative predicted value for HPV-negative women should be studied to determine the screening interval. Our study provides further evidence to the introduction of HPV-based strategies in China. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Both co-testing and primary HPV testing with HPV-16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology triage provided higher sensitivity for detecting CIN3+; however, the number of colposcopy referrals also increased compared with cytology in a routine program. It has great public health implications for the introduction of HPV-based screening strategies in China.

The impact of primary human papillomavirus screening on negative loop excision histology following biopsy-proven high-grade cervical intra-epithelial lesions: A review from a large tertiary colposcopy unit

BACKGROUND

The renewed National Cervical Screening Program incorporating primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening was implemented in Australia in December 2017. In a previous study conducted in the UK, primary HPV screening was found to be associated with a 25% reduction in the incidence of negative histology following loop electrosurgery excision procedure (LEEP).

AIM

To examine the change in incidence and associated risk factors for a negative LEEP with introduction of primary HPV screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the records of all patients undergoing a LEEP excision for biopsy-proven high-grade cervical intra-epithelial lesions between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2019 in a specialised centre.

RESULTS

There were 1123 patients who underwent a LEEP included in the analysis. The incidence of a negative LEEP specimen was 7.5% (59/784) and 5.3% (18/339) in the pre- and post-HPV screening cohort. More patients in the post-HPV screening group had low-grade cytology on referral (P < 0.001), smaller cervical lesions on colposcopy (P = 0.012) and longer biopsy to treatment interval (P = 0.020). Primary HPV screening was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of a negative LEEP specimen in a propensity matched cohort (11.2% to 5.1%, P = 0.006) and a 41% (P = 0.045) decreased relative risk of a negative LEEP on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary HPV screening results in a lower incidence of negative LEEP histology, despite a longer biopsy to treatment wait time and higher proportion of low-grade cytology at triage.

Gaps and opportunities for cervical cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care: evidence from midterm review of the Zimbabwe cervical Cancer prevention and control strategy (2016-2020)

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer amongst women globally and it accounts for the majority of cancer deaths among females in Zimbabwe. The objective of this midterm review analysis was to identify the gaps and opportunities for cervical cancer prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and care to inform the next cervical cancer strategy in Zimbabwe.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used for the midterm review. Secondary data was collected from programme documents, published and grey literature. Primary data was collected in six provinces through key informant interviews with officials and focus group discussions with beneficiaries. After data analysis, a draft report was presented to a technical working group to validate the findings and to fill in any gaps.

RESULTS

This midterm review revealed a myriad of gaps of the strategy particularly in diagnosis, treatment and care of cervical cancer and the primary focus was on secondary prevention. There was no data to quantify the level of awareness and advocacy for cervical cancer prevention. Our results revealed that there was no data on the proportion of women who ever tested for cervical cancer which existed nationally. Our findings suggest that some health facilities were screening women above 50 years old using VIAC, which is an inappropriate approach for those women. Quality control of VIAC and treatment of precancers were not part of the strategy. Pathological services were not efficient and effective due to lack of resources and additionally data on investigations were not routinely collected and available at the national level. Other gaps identified were limited funding, human resources, equipment, and commodities as well as lack of leadership at the national level to coordinate the various components of the cervical cancer programme. There are also numerous opportunities identified to build upon some successes realized to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasized the importance of effective and holistic planning in cervical cancer screening programmes in low-resource settings. In addition, huge investments are required in cervical cancer programmes and governments need to take centre role in mobilizing the requisite resources.

Use of extended HR-HPV Genotyping in improving the Triage Strategy of 2019 ASCCP recommendations in Women with positive HR-HPV diagnosis and Simultaneous LSIL Cytology Results

Objective: According to the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) recommendations, women with a positive high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) diagnosis and low-grade cervical intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology result should be referred for further colposcopy examination. However, this strategy results in over-treatment in several cases. In this study, we assessed the performance of extended HR-HPV genotyping in women with a simultaneous positive HR-HPV and LSIL diagnosis with the aim of improving the current triage strategy.

Methods: This study was an observational analysis of women from the Fujian Province Cervical Lesion Screening Cohorts (FCLSCs). Women who were HR-HPV-positive and had a cytological examination of LSIL, which were followed up with colposcopy and biopsy, from 2015 to 2018 were included. The study endpoint was defined as the detection of histological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). We combined HR-HPV genotypes according to the prevalence rate in histological CIN2+ and ranked them from high to low to establish HR-HPV genotyping models. Outcomes were assessed with respect to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and colposcopy referral rate.

Results: Overall, 56,788 women undergoing preliminary screening for HR-HPV genotyping were included in this study. Among them, 10,499 women positive for HR-HPV underwent a cytology examination, and 902 women with LSIL cytology diagnosed and subsequent biopsy results were included in the final evaluation. Among these patients, 25.1% (226/902) were found to have CIN2+ in histology. HPV-16, -58, -52, -18, -33, and -31 infections were the most common genotypes, and HPV-16, -18, -58, -33, and -31 (odds ratio [OR] = 5.41, 2.98, 1.38, 1.24, and 1.21, respectively) were associated with the potential for histological CIN2+, from the highest to lowest. In the detection of CIN2+ lesions in HR-HPV-positive LSIL women of different HR-HPV genotyping models, the extended HPV 16/18/31/33/52/58 genotyping model was found to have better efficacy with higher sensitivity (92.9%) and NPV (93.0%), but a significantly lower colposcopy referral rate (74.7%) than the ASCCP-recommended HR-HPV non-genotyping model.

Conclusion: For HR-HPV-positive women with LSIL, the HPV 16/18/31/33/52/58 genotyping model can serve as an alternative approach to the ASCCP recommendations, potentially reducing the unnecessary colposcopy referral burden in China.

The Differential Risk of Cervical Cancer in HPV-Vaccinated and -Unvaccinated Women: A Mathematical Modeling Study

BACKGROUND

With increased uptake of vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), protection against cervical cancer will also increase for unvaccinated women, due to herd immunity. Still, the differential risk between vaccinated and unvaccinated women might warrant a vaccination-status-screening approach. To understand the potential value of stratified screening protocols, we estimated the risk differentials in HPV and cervical cancer between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

METHODS

We used STDSIM, an individual-based model of HPV transmission and control, to estimate the HPV prevalence reduction over time, after introduction of HPV vaccination. We simulated scenarios of bivalent or nonavalent vaccination in females-only or females and males, at 20% coverage increments. We estimated relative HPV-type-specific prevalence reduction compared with a no-vaccination counterfactual and then estimated the age-specific cervical cancer risk by vaccination status.

RESULTS

The relative cervical cancer risk for unvaccinated compared with vaccinated women ranged from 1.7 (bivalent vaccine for females and males; 80% coverage) to 10.8 (nonavalent vaccine for females-only; 20% coverage). Under 60% vaccination coverage, which is a representative coverage for several western countries, including the United States, the relative risk (RR) varies between 2.2 (bivalent vaccine for females and males) and 9.2 (nonavalent vaccine for females).

CONCLUSIONS

We found large cervical cancer risk differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated women. In general, our model shows that the RR is higher in lower vaccine coverages, using the nonavalent vaccine, and when vaccinating females only.

IMPACT

To avoid a disbalance in harms and benefits between vaccinated and unvaccinated women, vaccination-based screening needs serious consideration.

Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening based on first year results in the Netherlands: a modelling study

Objective

We aim to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the old cytology programme with the new high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) screening programme, using performance indicators from the new Dutch hrHPV screening programme.

Design

Model‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis.

Setting

The Netherlands.

Population

Dutch 30‐year‐old unvaccinated females followed up lifelong.

Methods

We updated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model using the most recent epidemiological and screening data from the Netherlands. We simulated both screening programmes, using the screening behaviour and costs observed in each programme. Sensitivity analyses were performed on screening behaviour, utility losses and discount rates.

Main outcome measures

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates, number of screening tests and repeat tests, colposcopy referrals by lesion grade, costs from a societal perspective, quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and cost‐effectiveness.

Results

The new Dutch cervical cancer screening programme decreased the cervical cancer mortality by 4% and the incidence by 1% compared with the old programme. Colposcopy referrals of women without cervical intra‐epithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, increased by 172%, but 13% more QALYs were still achieved. Total costs were reduced by 21%, mainly due to fewer screening tests. Per QALY gained, the hrHPV programme cost 46% less (€12,225) than the cytology programme (€22,678), and hrHPV‐based screening remained more cost‐effective in all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

The hrHPV‐based screening programme was found to be more effective and cost‐effective than the cytology programme. Alternatives for the current triage strategy should be considered to lower the number of unnecessary referrals.

Tweetable abstract

First results after implementation confirm that HPV screening is more cost‐effective than cytology screening.

First results after implementation confirm that HPV screening is more cost‐effective than cytology screening.

The artificial intelligence-assisted cytology diagnostic system in large-scale cervical cancer screening: A population-based cohort study of 0.7 million women

Background

Adequate cytology is limited by insufficient cytologists in a large‐scale cervical cancer screening. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI)‐assisted cytology system in cervical cancer screening program.

Methods

We conducted a perspective cohort study within a population‐based cervical cancer screening program for 0.7 million women, using a validated AI‐assisted cytology system. For comparison, cytologists examined all slides classified by AI as abnormal and a randomly selected 10% of normal slides. Each woman with slides classified as abnormal by either AI‐assisted or manual reading was diagnosed by colposcopy and biopsy. The outcomes were histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).

Results

Finally, we recruited 703 103 women, of whom 98 549 were independently screened by AI and manual reading. The overall agreement rate between AI and manual reading was 94.7% (95% confidential interval [CI], 94.5%‐94.8%), and kappa was 0.92 (0.91‐0.92). The detection rates of CIN2+ increased with the severity of cytology abnormality performed by both AI and manual reading (P_trend < 0.001). General estimated equations showed that detection of CIN2+ among women with ASC‐H or HSIL by AI were significantly higher than corresponding groups classified by cytologists (for ASC‐H: odds ratio [OR] = 1.22, 95%CI 1.11‐1.34, P < .001; for HSIL: OR = 1.41, 1.28‐1.55, P < .001). AI‐assisted cytology was 5.8% (3.0%‐8.6%) more sensitive for detection of CIN2+ than manual reading with a slight reduction in specificity.

Conclusions

AI‐assisted cytology system could exclude most of normal cytology, and improve sensitivity with clinically equivalent specificity for detection of CIN2+ compared with manual cytology reading. Overall, the results support AI‐based cytology system for the primary cervical cancer screening in large‐scale population.

Real-world data on cervical cancer risk stratification by cytology and HPV genotype to inform the management of HPV-positive women in routine cervical screening

BACKGROUND

HPV16/18 detection may improve cervical cancer risk stratification and better guide which HPV-positive women warrant immediate colposcopy/biopsy. We estimated risks of cervical precancer and cancer by HPV genotype and cytology during the implementation phase of primary HPV testing in Norway.

METHODS

A total of 3111 women, aged 34-69 years, testing HPV-positive at baseline and undergoing cytology testing from February 2015 to April 2018 had data available for analysis. Risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or more severe (CIN3+) were estimated for cytology results and HPV genotypes (HPV16, HPV18, and other high-risk HPV).

RESULTS

CIN3+ risks were higher for HPV16/18 than other high-risk HPV genotypes. Among women with any cytologic abnormality [atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse], immediate risks were 57.8% (95%CI = 53.0-62.6%) for HPV16, 40.2% (95%CI = 32.3-49.2%) for HPV18, and 31.4% (95%CI = 28.7-34.3%) for other high-risk HPV. Among those with normal cytology, CIN3+ risks were 19.9% (95%CI = 15.0-26.1%) for HPV16 positives, 10.8% (95%CI = 5.6-20.5%) for HPV18 positives, and 5.5% (95%CI = 4.2-7.1%) for other high-risk HPV.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits and harms of managing women based on HPV positivity and cytology results can be better balanced by inclusion of HPV genotyping in screening and choosing more conservative management for other high-risk HPV compared to HPV16/18.

HPV sampling options for cervical cancer screening: preferences of urban-dwelling Canadians in a changing paradigm

Introduction

Of women in Canada diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, 50% have not been screened according to guidelines. Interventions involving self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (hpv) screening could be an avenue to increase uptake. To guide the development of cervical cancer screening interventions, we assessed ■ preferred sample collection options,■ sampling preferences according to previous screening behaviours, and■ preference for self-sampling among women not screened according to guidelines, as a function of their reasons for not being screened.

Methods

Data were collected in an online survey (Montreal, Quebec; 2016) and included information from female participants between the ages of 21 and 65 years who had not undergone hysterectomy and who had provided answers to survey questions about screening history, screening interval, and screening preferences (n = 526, weighted n = 574,392).

Results

In weighted analyses, 68% of all women surveyed and 82% of women not recently screened preferred screening by self-sampling. Among women born outside of Canada, the United States, or Europe, preference ranged from 47% to 60%. Nearly all women (95%-100%) who reported fear or embarrassment, dislike of undergoing a Pap test, or lack of time or geography-related availability of screening as one of their reasons for not being screened stated a preference for undergoing screening by self-sampling.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate a strong preference for self-sampling among never-screened and not-recently-screened women, and provides initial evidence for policymakers and researchers to address how best to integrate self-sampling hpv screening into both organized and opportunistic screening contexts.

Modeling the Balance of Benefits and Harms of Cervical Cancer Screening with Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing

BACKGROUND

Benefits of screening should outweigh its potential harms. We compared various metrics to assess the balance of benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

We used a cervical cancer natural history Markov model calibrated to the Canadian context to simulate 100,000 unvaccinated women over a lifetime of screening with either cytology every 3 years or human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years. We estimated the balance of benefits and harms attributable to screening using various metrics, including colposcopies/life-year gained, and net lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, a measure integrating women's health preferences. We present the average (minimum-maximum) model predictions.

RESULTS

Cytology-based screening led to 1,319,854 screening tests, 30,395 colposcopies, 13,504 life-years gained over a lifetime, 98 screening tests/life-year gained, 2.3 (1.6-3.3) colposcopies/life-year gained, and a net lifetime gain of 10,735 QALY (5,040-17,797). HPV-based screening with cytology triage in the same population would lead to 698,250 screening tests, 73,296 colposcopies, 15,066 life-years gained over a lifetime, 46 screening tests/life-year gained, 4.9 colposcopies/life-year gained (2.9-11.1), and a net lifetime gain of 11,690 QALY (4,409-18,742). HPV-based screening was predicted to prevent more cancers, but also incur more screening harms than cytology-based screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Metrics using colposcopies as the main harm outcome favored cytology-based screening, whereas metrics based on screening tests and health preferences tended to favor HPV-based screening strategies.

IMPACT

Whether HPV-based screening will improve the balance between benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening depends on how the balance between benefits and harms is assessed.

CIN III and cervical SCC with negative oncogenic HPV PCR: A case series

With the recent introduction of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in Australia, utilising primary human papillomavirus (HPV) nucleic acid testing (NAT) for known oncogenic HPV types rather than cervical cytology, we reflect on three asymptomatic women with negative oncogenic HPV test results and high-grade cervical abnormalities including cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) III and cervical squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The two cases with CIN III had a 'probable' oncogenic subtype (HPV 53) identified on further testing, while the case of SCC had no HPV virus identified. These cases serve as a reminder of the need for ongoing diligence despite low-risk screening under the new program.

Pathways to a cancer-free future: A protocol for modelled evaluations to maximize the future impact of interventions on cervical cancer in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Australia's HPV vaccination and HPV-based cervical screening programs are changing the landscape in cervical cancer prevention. We aim to identify areas which can make the biggest further impact on cervical cancer burden. This protocol describes the first stage of a program of work called Pathways-Cervix that aims to generate evidence from modelled evaluations of interventions across the cervical cancer spectrum.

METHODS

Based on evidence from literature reviews and guidance from a multi-disciplinary Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), the most relevant evaluations for prevention, diagnosis and treatment were identified.

RESULTS

Priority evaluations agreed by the SAC included: increasing/decreasing and retaining vaccination uptake at the current level; vaccinating older women; increasing screening participation; methods for triaging HPV-positive women; improving the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer; treating cervical abnormalities and cancer; and vaccinating women treated for CIN2/3 to prevent recurrence. Evaluations will be performed using a simulation model, Policy1-Cervix previously used to perform policy evaluations in Australia. Exploratory modelling of interventions using idealised scenarios will initially be conducted in single birth cohorts. If these have a significant impact on findings then evaluations with more realistic assumptions will be conducted. Promising strategies will be investigated further by multi-cohort simulations predicting health outcomes, resource use and cost outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathways-Cervix will assess the relative benefits of strategies and treatment options in a systematic and health economic framework, producing a list of 'best buys' for future decision-making in cervical cancer control.

Cervical Cancer and Its Precursors: A Preventative Approach to Screening, Diagnosis, and Management

Cervical cancer affects the cells lining the cervix, most commonly occurring in the cells of the transformation zone. Screening for cervical cancer looks to detect preinvasive disease, allowing for intervention before invasive disease develops. an assessment of individual risk factors, Selection of screening method depends on patient age, her screening history and results, and resources available. Screening has resulted in well-documented declines in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in the United States. Guidelines continue to evolve as new data emerge. Although cervical cancer prevention strategies include interventions directed toward limiting number of sexual partners, condom use, and reduction in cigarette smoking, vaccination represents the most direct targeted strategy.

Automated Cervical Screening and Triage, Based on HPV Testing and Computer-Interpreted Cytology

Background

State-of-the-art cervical cancer prevention includes human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among adolescents and screening/treatment of cervical precancer (CIN3/AIS and, less strictly, CIN2) among adults. HPV testing provides sensitive detection of precancer but, to reduce overtreatment, secondary "triage" is needed to predict women at highest risk. Those with the highest-risk HPV types or abnormal cytology are commonly referred to colposcopy; however, expert cytology services are critically lacking in many regions.

Methods

To permit completely automatable cervical screening/triage, we designed and validated a novel triage method, a cytologic risk score algorithm based on computer-scanned liquid-based slide features (FocalPoint, BD, Burlington, NC). We compared it with abnormal cytology in predicting precancer among 1839 women testing HPV positive (HC2, Qiagen, Germantown, MD) in 2010 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Precancer outcomes were ascertained by record linkage. As additional validation, we compared the algorithm prospectively with cytology results among 243 807 women screened at KPNC (2016-2017). All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Among HPV-positive women, the algorithm matched the triage performance of abnormal cytology. Combined with HPV16/18/45 typing (Onclarity, BD, Sparks, MD), the automatable strategy referred 91.7% of HPV-positive CIN3/AIS cases to immediate colposcopy while deferring 38.4% of all HPV-positive women to one-year retesting (compared with 89.1% and 37.4%, respectively, for typing and cytology triage). In the 2016-2017 validation, the predicted risk scores strongly correlated with cytology (P < .001).

Conclusions

High-quality cervical screening and triage performance is achievable using this completely automated approach. Automated technology could permit extension of high-quality cervical screening/triage coverage to currently underserved regions.

Comparison of human papillomavirus genotyping and cytology triage, COMPACT Study: Design, methods and baseline results in 14 642 women

Although cytology‐based screening programs have significantly reduced mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer, the global consensus is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. However, the optimal triage strategy for HPV‐positive women to avoid over‐referral to colposcopy may be setting specific. As Japan requires data that have been generated domestically to modify screening guidelines, we conducted a 3‐year prospective study, COMparison of HPV genotyping And Cytology Triage (COMPACT), to evaluate the potential role of HPV16/18 partial genotyping and cytology for primary HPV screening. In total, 14 642 women aged 20 to 69 years undergoing routine screening at 3 centers in Hokkaido were enrolled. Conventional cytology and HPV testing were carried out. Women with abnormal cytology or HPV16/18 positivity underwent colposcopy. Those with 12 other high‐risk (hr) HPV types underwent repeat cytology after 6 months. Primary study endpoints were detection of high‐grade cervical disease defined as CIN2/CIN3 or greater as determined by consensus pathology. Prevalence of cytological abnormalities was 2.4%. hrHPV, HPV 16, and HPV 18 were detected in 4.6%, 0.9%, and 0.3% of women, respectively. HPV16/18 were detected in all (8/8) invasive cervical cancers and in all (2/2) adenocarcinomas in situ. Both cytological abnormalities and hrHPV positivity declined with increasing age. This is the first Japanese study to investigate the role of partial genotyping and cytology in an HPV‐based screening program. Results should help policy‐makers develop guidelines for future cervical screening programs and management of cervical abnormalities based on HPV genotype.