Cotesting in Cervical Cancer Screening

Raman Spectroscopy for Early Detection of Cervical Cancer, a Global Women’s Health Issue—A Review

This review focuses on recent advances and future perspectives in the use of Raman spectroscopy for cervical cancer, a global women’s health issue. Cervical cancer is the fourth most common women’s cancer in the world, and unfortunately mainly affects younger women. However, when detected at the early precancer stage, it is highly treatable. High-quality cervical screening programmes and the introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine are reducing the incidence of cervical cancer in many countries, but screening is still essential for all women. Current gold standard methods include HPV testing and cytology for screening, followed by colposcopy and histopathology for diagnosis. However, these methods are limited in terms of sensitivity/specificity, cost, and time. New methods are required to aid clinicians in the early detection of cervical precancer. Over the past 20 years, the potential of Raman spectroscopy together with multivariate statistical analysis has been shown for the detection of cervical cancer. This review discusses the research to date on Raman spectroscopic approaches for cervical cancer using exfoliated cells, biofluid samples, and tissue ex vivo and in vivo.

Comparison of primary cytology, primary HPV testing and co-testing as cervical cancer screening for Chinese women: a population-based screening cohort

OBJECTIVES

We compared clinical performance of three strategies of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, primary cytology and co-testing for cervical cancer screening.

DESIGN

A population-based prospective cohort study of clinical performance of screening strategy.

SETTING

Patients recruited from community in Changzhi County, Shanxi Province, China.

PATIENT

3209 women aged 30-64 years without gynaecological issues.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The performance of different screening strategies for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe (CIN2+).

RESULTS

A total of 53 CIN2+ and 31 CIN3+ cases are detected. For CIN2+, sensitivity of primary HPV (95.9%) and co-testing (98.0%) are not statistically different, but significantly higher than primary cytology (48.0%). Specificity (86.8%), colposcopy referral rate (7.8%) and number of colposcopies required to detect one case (9.8) for primary HPV are better than co-testing (79.8%, 11.9%, 14.3%, respectively). For CIN3+, primary HPV, co-testing have 100% of sensitivity and specificity, which is significantly higher than primary cytology (56.7% and 90.2%). Number of colposcopies required to detect one case for primary HPV (15.9) is better than co-testing (23.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with co-testing, HPV primary screening had comparable sensitivity and higher specificity for CIN2+ detection, and both of them showed better performance than cytology primary screening in cervical cancer screening.

Should screening for cervical cancer go to primary human papillomavirus testing and eliminate cytology?

This review will systematically highlight the pros and cons of cervical cancer screening with HPV (human papillomavirus) testing and cytological methods (Papanicolaou (Pap) test). When comparing the screening modalities, various facets will be addressed, such as cost effectiveness, and harms and benefits across different demographics and age groups. It is important to note that due to the expansive variance in material costs, practices, and resource availability across different geographical regions, these comparisons are far from straight forward, and ultimately make it challenging to render definitive global recommendations. Thus, the intent of this review is to highlight some of the differences in difference cervical cancer screening modalities that can help one to choose an optimal screening method in their specific situation.

Co-testing in cervical screening among 40- to 42-year-old women is unreasonable

INTRODUCTION

The screening program for cervical cancer in Sweden recommends the use of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening for women aged ≥30 to 65 years. Co-testing with both HPV analysis and cytology is recommended at the first screening after the age of 40 years. To fulfil co-testing, all screened women aged 40-42 years within the region of Skåne were co-tested. The aim of the audit was to investigate the proportion of severe dysplasia as diagnosed by cytology and histological follow-up among women with Aptima HPV-negative tests. We also calculated the cost of adding the cytology to the HPV primary screening program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The local cytology registry was used to identify women aged 40-42 years who attended screening and were co-tested during the 4 years from January 2017 to December 2020. The Aptima HPV messenger RNA assay detects 14 HPV types. For Aptima HPV-negative women with high-grade cytology or histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs), we performed extended HPV typing for 40 HPV types with polymerase chain reaction using modified GP5+/6+ primers followed by a Luminex assay. To estimate the added cost of using cytology to identify each histologically confirmed cervical HSIL case among Aptima HPV-negative women, we used the current cost of €21.2 per cytology evaluation at our laboratory.

RESULTS

Of 19 599 women, 5.8% (1137/19 599) had abnormal cytology. Among Aptima HPV-negative women, 0.11‰ (2/18 132) had histologically confirmed HSIL. One of the women was infected with HPV18 and the other with HPV73 at the diagnosis of HSIL. The calculated cost to find one HSIL, by adding cytology to HPV-negative cases, was approximately €200 000.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical benefit of a single cytology co-test added to an HPV-based screening program in women aged 40-42 years appears doubtful and economically unreasonable.