Cervical cancer screening has traditionally been based on cervical cytology. Given the aetiological relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis, HPV testing ...has been proposed as an alternative screening test.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV testing for detecting histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+), including adenocarcinoma in situ, in women participating in primary cervical cancer screening; and how it compares to the accuracy of cytological testing (liquid-based and conventional) at various thresholds.
We performed a systematic literature search of articles in MEDLINE and Embase (1992 to November 2015) containing quantitative data and handsearched the reference lists of retrieved articles.
We included comparative test accuracy studies if all women received both HPV testing and cervical cytology followed by verification of the disease status with the reference standard, if positive for at least one screening test. The studies had to include women participating in a cervical cancer screening programme who were not being followed up for previous cytological abnormalities.
We completed a 2 x 2 table with the number of true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives for each screening test (HPV test and cytology) used in each study. We calculated the absolute and relative sensitivities and the specificities of the tests for the detection of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+ at various thresholds and computed sensitivity (TP/(TP + TN) and specificity (TN/ (TN + FP) for each test separately. Relative sensitivity and specificity of one test compared to another test were defined as sensitivity of test-1 over sensitivity of test-2 and specificity of test-1 over specificity of test-2, respectively. To assess bias in the studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic test Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. We used a bivariate random-effects model for computing pooled accuracy estimates. This model takes into account the within- and between-study variability and the intrinsic correlation between sensitivity and specificity.
We included a total of 40 studies in the review, with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old. Many studies were at low risk of bias. There were a sufficient number of included studies with adequate methodology to perform the following test comparisons: hybrid capture 2 (HC2) (1 pg/mL threshold) versus conventional cytology (CC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS)+ and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL)+ thresholds) or liquid-based cytology (LBC) (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds), other high-risk HPV tests versus conventional cytology (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds) or LBC (ASCUS+ and LSIL+ thresholds). For CIN 2+, pooled sensitivity estimates for HC2, CC and LBC (ASCUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, and pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively. The results did not differ by age of women (less than or greater than 30 years old), or in studies with verification bias. Accuracy of HC2 was, however, greater in European countries compared to other countries. The results for the sensitivity of the tests were heterogeneous ranging from 52% to 94% for LBC, and 61% to 100% for HC2. Overall, the quality of the evidence for the sensitivity of the tests was moderate, and high for the specificity.The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 2+ was 1.52 (95% CI: 1.24 to 1.86) and the relative specificity 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), and versus LBC for CIN 2+ was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.26) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus CC for CIN 3+ was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.91) and the relative specificity 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97). The relative sensitivity of HC2 versus LBC for CIN 3+ was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28) and the relative specificity 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97).
Whilst HPV tests are less likely to miss cases of CIN 2+ and CIN 3+, these tests do lead to more unnecessary referrals. However, a negative HPV test is more reassuring than a negative cytological test, as the cytological test has a greater chance of being falsely negative, which could lead to delays in receiving the appropriate treatment. Evidence from prospective longitudinal studies is needed to establish the relative clinical implications of these tests.
To examine trends in the use of cervical cancer screening tests during 2013–2019 among commercially insured women.
The study population included women of all ages with continuous enrollment each year ...in the IBM MarketScan commercial or Medicare supplemental databases and without known history of cervical cancer or precancer (range = 6.9–9.8 million women per year). Annual cervical cancer screening test use was examined by three modalities: cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing (cotesting), and HPV testing alone. Trends were assessed using 2-sided Poisson regression.
Use of cytology alone decreased from 34.2% in 2013 to 26.4% in 2019 among women aged 21–29 years (P < .0001). Among women aged 30–64 years, use of cytology alone decreased from 18.9% in 2013 to 8.6% in 2019 (P < .0001), whereas cotesting use increased from 14.9% in 2013 to 19.3% in 2019 (P < .0001). Annual test use for HPV testing alone was below 0.5% in all age groups throughout the study period. Annually, 8.7%–13.6% of women aged 18–20 years received cervical cancer screening. There were persistent differences in screening test use by metropolitan residence and census regions despite similar temporal trends.
Temporal changes in the use of cervical cancer screening tests among commercially insured women track changes in clinical guidelines. Screening test use among individuals younger than 21 years shows that many young women are inappropriately screened for cervical cancer.
•From 2013 to 2019, use of cytology alone decreased among women aged 21–64 years.•Use of cotesting increased among women aged 30–64 years.•There was little uptake of primary HPV screening among all age groups.•Many women younger than age 21 received cervical cancer screening which is not recommended.
•Self-collection is comparable to current practice for detecting cervical lesions.•Collection devices may have impact on disease detection and on acceptability.•Delays in specimen preparation can ...notably affect the performance of self-collection.•Only validated procedure should be used and any delays should be minimized.
Comparative data on different self-collection methods is limited.
To assess the impact of hrHPV testing of two self-collection devices for detection of cervical carcinoma and high-grade lesions.
Three hundred ten patients collected two cervicovaginal specimens using a brush (Evalyn®Brush) and a swab (FLOQSwabs™), and filled a questionnaire at home. Then, a physician at the clinic took a cervical specimen into PreservCyt® buffer for hrHPV testing and cytology. All specimens were tested using Anyplex™ II HPV28, Cobas® 4800 HPV Test and Xpert®HPV.
Performance comparison included 45 cervical carcinomas and 187 patients with premalignant lesions. Compared to the physician-specimen, hrHPV testing of Evalyn®Brush showed non-inferior sensitivity for CIN3+ (relative sensitivity of Anyplex™ 0.99; Cobas® 0.96; Xpert®HPV 0.97) while hrHPV testing of FLOQSwabs™ showed inferior sensitivity (relative sensitivity of Anyplex™ 0.91; Cobas® 0.92; Xpert®HPV 0.93). Similar results were observed for invasive carcinomas albeit that FLOQSwabs™ was statistically non-inferior to the physician-specimen. Self-collection by either Evalyn®Brush or FLOQSwabs™ was more sensitive for CIN3+ than LSIL or worse cytology. Significant decrease in sensitivity for CIN3+ were observed for FLOQSwabs™ when specimens were preprocessed for hrHPV testing after 28 days. Both devices were well accepted, but patients considered Evalyn®Brush easier and more comfortable than FLOQSwabs™.
Self-collection is comparable to current screening practice for detecting cervical carcinoma and CIN3+ but device and specimen processing effects exist. Only validated procedure including collection device, hrHPV assay and specimen preparation should be used.
Microscopic evaluation of the types of cells present in vaginal smears has long been used to document the stages of the estrous cycle in laboratory rats and mice and as an index of the functional ...status of the hypothalamic–pituitary–ovarian axis. The estrous cycle is generally divided into the four stages of proestrus, estrus, metestrus, and diestrus. On cytological evaluation, these stages are defined by the absence, presence, or proportion of 4 basic cell types as well as by the cell density and arrangement of the cells on the slide. Multiple references regarding the cytology of the rat and mouse estrous cycle are available. Many contemporary references and studies, however, have relatively abbreviated definitions of the stages, are in reference to direct wet mount preparations, or lack comprehensive illustrations. This has led to ambiguity and, in some cases, a loss of appreciation for the encountered nuances of dividing a steadily moving cycle into 4 stages. The aim of this review is to provide a detailed description, discussion, and illustration of vaginal cytology of the rat and mouse estrous cycle as it appears on smears stained with metachromatic stains.
The short reproductive cycle length observed in rodents, called the estrous cycle, makes them an ideal animal model for investigation of changes that occur during the reproductive cycle. Most of the ...data in the literature about the estrous cycle is obtained from rats because they are easily manipulated and they exhibit a clear and well-defined estrous cycle. However, the increased number of experiments using knockout mice requires identification of their estrous cycle as well, since (in)fertility issues may arise. In mice, like rats, the identification of the stage of estrous cycle is based on the proportion of cell types observed in the vaginal secretion. The aim of this unit is to provide guidelines for quickly and accurately determining estrous cycle phases in mice.
The Bethesda 2001 Workshop was convened to evaluate and update the 1991 Bethesda System terminology for reporting the results of cervical cytology. A primary objective was to develop a new approach ...to broaden participation in the consensus process.
Forum groups composed of 6 to 10 individuals were responsible for developing recommendations for discussion at the workshop. Each forum group included at least 1 cytopathologist, cytotechnologist, clinician, and international representative to ensure a broad range of views and interests. More than 400 cytopathologists, cytotechnologists, histopathologists, family practitioners, gynecologists, public health physicians, epidemiologists, patient advocates, and attorneys participated in the workshop, which was convened by the National Cancer Institute and cosponsored by 44 professional societies. More than 20 countries were represented.
Literature review, expert opinion, and input from an Internet bulletin board were all considered in developing recommendations. The strength of evidence of the scientific data was considered of paramount importance.
Bethesda 2001 was a year-long iterative review process. An Internet bulletin board was used for discussion of issues and drafts of recommendations. More than 1000 comments were posted to the bulletin board over the course of 6 months. The Bethesda Workshop, held April 30-May 2, 2001, was open to the public. Postworkshop recommendations were posted on the bulletin board for a last round of critical review prior to finalizing the terminology.
Bethesda 2001 was developed with broad participation in the consensus process. The 2001 Bethesda System terminology reflects important advances in biological understanding of cervical neoplasia and cervical screening technology.
Abstract
We evaluated the accuracy of patient-collected skin lesions, oropharyngeal, and rectal swabs among 50 individuals enrolled in a study of mpox viral dynamics. We found that the performance of ...self-collected samples was similar to that of physician-collected samples, suggesting that self-sampling is a reliable strategy for diagnosing mpox.
Objective
To determine whether severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is present in the vaginal secretions of both reproductive‐aged and postmenopausal women during acute ...SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
Design
Prospective study.
Setting
A single tertiary, university‐affiliated medical centre in Israel. Time period, 1 June 2020 through to 31 July 2020.
Population
Women who were hospitalised in a single tertiary medical centre, who were diagnosed with acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection by a nasopharyngeal RT‐PCR test.
Methods
Women were diagnosed with acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection by a nasopharyngeal RT‐PCR test. Vaginal RT‐PCR swabs were obtained from all study participants after a proper cleansing of the perineum.
Main outcome measures
Detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in vaginal RT‐PCR swabs.
Results
Vaginal and nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 35 women, aged 21–93 years. Twenty‐one women (60%) were in their reproductive years, of whom, five were in their third trimester of pregnancy. Most of the participants (57%) were healthy without any underlying medical conditions. Of the 35 patients sampled, 2 (5.7%) had a positive vaginal RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2, one was premenopausal and the other was a postmenopausal woman. Both women had mild disease.
Conclusion
Our findings contradict most previous reports, which did not detect the presence of viral colonisation in the vagina. Although passage through the birth canal exposes neonates to the vaginal polymicrobial flora, an acquisition of pathogens does not necessarily mandate neonatal infection or clinical disease. Nevertheless, when delivering the infant of a woman with acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, a clinician should consider the possibility of vaginal colonisation, even if it is uncommon.
Tweetable
When delivering the infant of a woman with acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, a clinician should consider the possibility of vaginal colonisation.
Tweetable
When delivering the infant of a woman with acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, a clinician should consider the possibility of vaginal colonisation.
Abstract Objectives High attendance rates in cervical screening are essential for effective cancer prevention. Offering HPV self-sampling to non-responders increases participation rates. The ...objectives of this study were to determine why non-responders do not attend regular screening, and why they do or do not participate when offered a self-sampling device. Methods A questionnaire study was conducted in the Netherlands from October 2011 to December 2012. A total of 35,477 non-responders were invited to participate in an HPV self-sampling study; 5347 women did opt out. Finally, 30,130 women received a questionnaire and self-sampling device. Results The analysis was based on 9484 returned questionnaires (31.5%) with a self-sample specimen, and 682 (2.3%) without. Among women who returned both, the main reason for non-attendance to cervical screening was that they forgot to schedule an appointment (3068; 32.3%). The most important reason to use the self-sampling device was the opportunity to take a sample in their own time-setting (4763; 50.2%). A total of 30.9% of the women who did not use the self-sampling device preferred after all to have a cervical smear taken instead. Conclusions Organisational barriers are the main reason for non-attendance in regular cervical screening. Important reasons for non-responders to the regular screening to use a self-sampling device are convenience and self-control.
PDF
