Eduardo Lazcano‐Ponce

Comparative performance of the human papillomavirus test and cytology for primary screening for high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at the population level

AbstractThe World Health Organization recommends high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)‐based screening for women 39 to 49 years, based on the greater accuracy of hrHPV‐based screening for cervical cancer detection. Many cervical cancer screening programs have incorporated hrHPV testing and multiple early cervical cancer detection strategies have been evaluated, mostly under controlled conditions. However, there are few evaluations of combined hrHPV and cytology strategies post‐implementation at the population level. Our study sought to estimate the relative yield of hrHPV testing compared to cervical cytology, as a primary screening test for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+), used at the population level. We analyzed screening data from Mexico's public cervical cancer prevention program from 2010 to 2015 in women 35 to 64 years. The study population consisted of two cohorts: one from a total of 2 881 962 cytology‐based screening tests and another from a total of 2 004 497 hrHPV‐based screening tests, which are concurrent in time. We performed a relative yield analysis using Poisson regression models to compare the effectiveness of hrHPV testing for CIN2+ with cervical cytology. A total of 4 886 459 records were analyzed, including 23 999 biopsies; 0.12% (n = 6166) had a CIN2+ histologic diagnosis. hrHPV testing with cytological triage detects twice as many CIN2+ cases as screening using cytology alone.

Clinical Performance of hrHPV Primary Screening Using Vaginal versus Cervical Samples to Detect High-grade Intraepithelial Lesions

Abstract High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is now the most recommended primary method for cervical cancer screening worldwide. Clinician-collected cervical sampling continues to be the main sampling method, but hrHPV vaginal self-sampling is an appealing alternative because of its greater acceptability and potentially higher cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to determine whether hrHPV vaginal self-sampling is comparable with clinician-collected cervical sampling for detecting histologically confirmed high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2/3) as part of a cervical cancer screening program in Mexico. We analyzed data from 5,856 women screened during a hrHPV-based screening study. Clinical performance and diagnostic efficiency metrics were estimated for the two sampling methods for the CIN3 and CIN2+ endpoints, using three triage strategies: HPV16/18 genotyping, HPV16/18/33/58 extended genotyping, and HPV16/18/31/33/58 extended genotyping. hrHPV-positivity was found in 801 (13.7%) cervical and 897 (15.3%) vaginal samples. All women with hrHPV-positive samples were referred to colposcopy, which detected 17 total CIN3 cases before considering retrospective triage strategies. Using the HPV16/18/31/33/58 extended genotyping strategy, 245 women had hrHPV-positive cervical samples and 269 had hrHPV-positive vaginal samples. Ten CIN3 cases were detected each among women with hrHPV-positive cervical samples and among those with hrHPV-positive vaginal samples when using this strategy, with no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity observed. We observe that self- and clinician-collected sampling methods are comparable for detecting CIN3 and CIN2+ regardless of the triage strategy used. These findings can help public health officials to develop more cost-effective cervical cancer screening programs that maximize participation. Prevention Relevance: We found that hrHPV vaginal self-sampling is comparable with hrHPV clinician cervical sampling when using any triage strategy to refer women to colposcopy, so self-sampling is a viable cervical screening method. Therefore, policymakers should consider incorporating self-sampling into cervical screening programs to increase screening coverage and reduce cervical cancer burden. See related Spotlight, p. 649