Summary Background A new test ( care HPV; QIAGEN, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) has been developed to detect 14 high-risk types of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) in about 2·5 h, to screen women in ...developing regions for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We did a cross-sectional study to assess the clinical accuracy of care HPV as a rapid screening test in two county hospitals in rural China. Methods From May 10 to June 15, 2007, the care HPV test was done locally by use of self-obtained vaginal and provider-obtained cervical specimens from a screening population-based set of 2530 women aged 30 to 54 years in Shanxi province, China. All women were assessed by visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Digene High-Risk HPV HC2 DNA Test (HC2), liquid-based cytology, and colposcopy with directed biopsy and endocervical curettage as necessary. In 2388 women with complete data, 441 women with negative colposcopy, but unsatisfactory or abnormal cytology or who were positive on HC2 or the new care HPV test, were recalled for a second colposcopy, four-quadrant cervical biopsies, and endocervical curettage. An absence of independence between the tests was not adjusted for and the Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. Findings Complete data were available for 2388 (94·4%) women. 70 women had CIN2+ (moderate or severe CIN or cancer), of whom 23 had CIN3+. By use of CIN2+ as the reference standard and area-under-the-curve analysis with a two-sided alpha error level of 0·0083, the sensitivities and specificities of the care HPV test for a cut-off ratio cut-point of 0·5 relative light units, were 90·0% (95% CI 83·0–97·0) and 84·2% (82·7–85·7), respectively, on cervical specimens, and 81·4% (72·3–90·5) and 82·4% (80·8–83·9), respectively, on vaginal specimens (areas under the curve not significantly different, p=0·0596), compared with 41·4% (29·9–53·0) and 94·5% (93·6–95·4) for VIA (areas under the curve significantly different, p=0·0001 and p=0·0031, for cervical and vaginal-specimen comparisons for the care HPV test, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of HC2 for cervical specimens were 97·1% (93·2–100) and 85·6% (84·2–87·1), respectively (areas under the curve not significantly different from the care HPV test on cervical specimens, p=0·0163). Interpretation The care HPV test is promising as a primary screening method for cervical-cancer prevention in low-resource regions. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Summary Background Vaginal self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing could increase rates of screening participation. In clinic-based settings, vaginal HPV testing is at least as ...sensitive as cytology for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse; however, effectiveness in home settings is unknown. We aimed to establish the relative sensitivity and positive predictive value for HPV screening of vaginal samples self-collected at home as compared with clinic-based cervical cytology. Methods We did a community-based, randomised equivalence trial in Mexican women of low socioeconomic status aged 25–65 years. Participants came from 540 medically underserved, predominantly rural communities in Morelos, Guerrero, and the state of Mexico. Our primary endpoint was CIN 2 or worse, detected by colposcopy. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly allocate patients to HPV screening or cervical cytology. Eight community nurses who were masked to patient allocation received daily lists of the women's names and addresses, and did the assigned home visits. We referred women with positive results in either test to colposcopy. We did per-protocol and intention-to-screen analyses. This trial was registered with the Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico, INSP number 590. Findings 12 330 women were randomly allocated to HPV screening and 12 731 to cervical cytology; 9202 women in the HPV screening group adhered to the protocol, as did 11 054 in the cervical cytology group. HPV prevalence was 9·8% (95% CI 9·1–10·4) and abnormal cytology rate was 0·38% (0·23–0·45). HPV testing identified 117·4 women with CIN 2 or worse per 10 000 (95·2–139·5) compared with 34·4 women with CIN 2 or worse per 10 000 (23·4–45·3) identified by cytology; the relative sensitivity of HPV testing was 3·4 times greater (2·4–4·9). Similarly, HPV testing detected 4·2 times (1·9–9·2) more invasive cancers than did cytology (30·4 per 10 000 19·1–41·7 vs 7·2 per 10 000 2·2–12·3). The positive predictive value of HPV testing for CIN 2 or worse was 12·2% (9·9–14·5) compared with 90·5% (61·7–100) for cytology. Interpretation Despite the much lower positive predictive value for HPV testing of self-collected vaginal specimens compared with cytology, such testing might be preferred for detecting CIN 2 or worse in low-resource settings where restricted infrastructure reduces the effectiveness of cytology screening programmes. Because women at these sites will be screened only a few times in their lives, the high sensitivity of a HPV screen is of paramount importance. Funding Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, the Health Ministry of Mexico, QiAGEN Corp