Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women

C Clavel, M Masure, J P Bory, I Putaud, C Mangeonjean, M Lorenzato, P Nazeyrollas, R Gabriel, C Quereux, P Birembaut, C Clavel, M Masure, J P Bory, I Putaud, C Mangeonjean, M Lorenzato, P Nazeyrollas, R Gabriel, C Quereux, P Birembaut

Abstract

High-risk human papillomaviruses (HR-HPV) are the necessary cause of cervical carcinomas. To determine whether HPR-HPV DNA detection in primary routine screening could represent a sensitive and reliable technique for the detection of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HGSIL), laboratory analysis using 2 cytologic techniques (conventional and liquid-based), HPV testing with Hybrid Capture II assay (HC-II), followed by colposcopic examination of women with abnormal cervical finding and/or persistent HR-HPV infection, was conducted in 7932 women who had routine cervical examination. The sensitivity of HPV testing for detecting a histologically proven HGSIL was 100%, higher than that of conventional (68.1%) and liquid-based (87.8%) cytology. The low specificities of 85.6% and 87.3% of HPV testing slightly increased to 88.4% and 90.1% if HPV testing was reserved for woman >30 years old. The quantitative approach provided by the HC-II assay for the assessment of the viral load was not reliable for predicting HGSIL in normal smears. HR-HPV testing could be proposed in primary screening in association with cytology. With conventional cytology it significantly improves the detection of HGSIL. With the use of the same cervical scrape for HPV testing and liquid-based cytology, HR-HPV testing would allow to select positive samples treated in a second time for cytology which gives a good specificity.

Copyright 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 1992 Oct 29;327(18):1272-8
    1. Histopathology. 1998 Jul;33(1):83-6
    1. Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):203-8
    1. J Infect Dis. 2001 Jan 1;183(1):8-15
    1. J Infect Dis. 1999 Nov;180(5):1415-23
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Sep 20;87(18):1365-71
    1. Br J Cancer. 1999 Jul;80(9):1306-11
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jun;178(6):1235-44
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 May 17;92(10):818-25
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 May;180(5):1049-53
    1. Br J Cancer. 2000 Sep;83(5):561-5
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Mar;172(3):946-54
    1. JAMA. 2000 Jan 5;283(1):87-93
    1. Lancet. 1995 Jun 17;345(8964):1533-6
    1. Int J Cancer. 1995 May 4;61(3):306-11
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 May;174(5):1534-41
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Feb 21;93(4):293-9
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Mar 15;92(6):464-74
    1. J Pathol. 1999 Sep;189(1):12-9
    1. Lancet. 2000 Jun 24;355(9222):2194-8
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Jun 7;87(11):796-802
    1. Int J Cancer. 1996 Dec 11;68(6):766-9
    1. J Clin Pathol. 1998 Oct;51(10):737-40
    1. N Engl J Med. 1998 Feb 12;338(7):423-8
    1. Br J Cancer. 1989 Jul;60(1):132-41
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;178(5):962-6
    1. Br J Cancer. 1999 Oct;81(3):554-8
    1. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1994;186:131-56
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Mar;79(3):328-37
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Nov;36(11):3248-54
    1. Diagn Mol Pathol. 1999 Sep;8(3):157-64
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Feb;38(2):651-5
    1. Mod Pathol. 1998 Sep;11(9):837-43
    1. Mod Pathol. 2000 Mar;13(3):275-84
    1. Br J Cancer. 1994 Jan;69(1):167-71
    1. JAMA. 1999 May 5;281(17):1605-10
    1. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1994 Mar;4(2):73-78
    1. Diagn Cytopathol. 2000 Jan;22(1):52-9
    1. Int J Cancer. 1998 Feb 9;75(4):525-8
    1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000 Sep;9(9):945-51

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren