Access to POEMs and Essential Evidence Plus will no longer be included in CMA membership as of Dec. 1, 2023.
Clinical Question
Is detection of high-grade cervical neoplasia superior with co-testing or with primary HPV testing only?
Bottom line
The results of this population-based retrospective Swedish cohort support HPV testing alone as a routine screening approach for cervical cancer. Among individuals confirmed by biopsy to have CIN2+, cytology was positive in < 0.02% of individuals with negative HPV. These results didn’t hold for testing based on clinical indications or for unknown indication, in which 3.8% of individuals with CIN2+ would have been missed without cytology as a co-test. 2b
Reference
Study design: Cohort (retrospective)
Funding: Government
Setting: Population-based
Synopsis
This is a large retrospective population-based cohort study (N = 208,701) using Swedish registry data to assess cervical cancer screening outcomes with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing alone versus co-testing with HPV testing and cytology (usually Thin Prep). The authors included individuals aged 40 to 42 years in 2019 who had cervical cancer testing (n = 18,674), of which the population of interest was 10,643 (with 10,664 tests) who were part of the Swedish cervical screening program. The rest of the testing was for clinical indications (n = 4529) or unknown (n = 3481). In the vast majority of cases, co-testing was on the same day (99.6%). Co-tests outside the 14-day window were excluded. There were 197 individuals who had biopsy within 6 months of co-testing with results of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, or cancer (CIN2+). Of these, 189 had both positive cytology and positive HPV, 6 had negative cytology with positive HPV, and 2 (< 0.02%) had positive cytology with negative HPV. CIN2+ with results showing positive cytology and negative HPV was more common among individuals who were tested for clinical or unknown indications (11/290; 3.8%). The prevalence of HPV vaccination in the population studied was not provided.
Reviewer
Linda Speer, MD
Professor and Chair, Department of Family Medicine
University of Toledo
Toledo, OH
Comments
Impact assessment
Excellent