No abstract

Objective To compare the accuracy of conventional cytology with liquid based cytology for primary screening of cervical cancer. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Nine screening programmes in Italy. Participants Women aged 25-60 attending for a new screening round: 22 466 were assigned to the conventional arm and 22 708 were assigned to the experimental arm. Interventions Conventional cytology compared with liquid based cytology and testing for human papillomavirus. Main outcome measure Relative sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more at blindly reviewed histology, with atypical cells of undetermined significance or more severe cytology considered a positive result. Results In an intention to screen analysis liquid based cytology showed no significant increase in sensitivity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more (relative sensitivity 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.56) whereas the positive predictive value was reduced (relative positive predictive value v conventional cytology 0.58, 0.44 to 0.77). Liquid based cytology detected more lesions of grade 1 or more (relative sensitivity 1.68, 1.40 to 2.02), with a larger increase among women aged 25-34 (P for heterogeneity 0.0006), but did not detect more lesions of grade 3 or more (relative sensitivity 0.84, 0.56 to 1.25). Results were similar when only low grade intraepithelial lesions or more severe cytology were considered a positive result. No evidence was found of heterogeneity between centres or of improvement with increasing time from start of the study. The relative frequency of women with at least one unsatisfactory result was lower with liquid based cytology (0.62, 0.56 to 0.69).Conclusion Liquid based cytology showed no statistically significant difference in sensitivity to conventional cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or more. More positive results were found, however, leading to a lower positive predictive value. A large reduction in unsatisfactory smears was evident. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81678807. INTRODUCTIONLiquid based cytology is used widely for primary screening of cervical cancer but high quality studies on its accuracy are limited. Indeed almost all published studies are based either on the comparison of non-randomly assigned populations or on double testing the same women. With the double testing design, cells used for diagnosis could be removed with the conventional sample, which is taken first, leading to an underestimation of the accuracy of liquid based cytology. In addition only some of the published studies, in a primary screening setting, considered histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia as the end point and only a few verified the diagnosis by colpohistology in the large majority of women with abnormal cytology results. A recent review identified one small randomised trial only and concluded that large randomised trials were needed.

Background:Human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening needs triage. In most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on HPV testing with cytological triage, cytology interpretation has been blind to HPV status.Methods:Women age 25 to 60 years enrolled in the New Technology in Cervical Cancer (NTCC) RCT comparing HPV testing with cytology were referred to colposcopy if HPV positive and, if no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was detected, followed up until HPV negativity. Cytological slides taken at the first colposcopy were retrieved and independently interpreted by an external laboratory, which was only aware of patients’ HPV positivity. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were computed for histologically proven CIN2+ with HPV status–informed cytology for women with a determination of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) or more severe. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results:Among HPV-positive women, informed cytology had cross-sectional sensitivity, specificity, PPV and 1-NPV for CIN2+ of 85.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 76.6 to 92.1), 65.9% (95% CI = 63.1 to 68.6), 16.2% (95% CI = 13.0 to 19.8), and 1.7 (95% CI = 0.9 to 2.8), respectively. Cytology was also associated with subsequent risk of newly diagnosed CIN2+ and CIN3+. The cross-sectional relative sensitivity for CIN2+ vs blind cytology obtained by referring to colposcopy and following up only HPV positive women who had HPV status–informed cytology greater than or equal to ASCUS was 1.58 (95% CI = 1.22 to 2.01), while the corresponding relative referral to colposcopy was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.86 to 1.04).Conclusions:Cytology informed of HPV positivity is more sensitive than blind cytology and could allow longer intervals before retesting HPV-positive, cytology-negative women.