BackgroundCurrently, available data regarding previous cervical cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test results to detect invasive cervical cancer are limited and controversial in China. Therefore, this retrospective study in a population of Chinese women with invasive cervical carcinoma aimed to gain further insight into the roles of cytology and hrHPV testing in cervical cancer screening.MethodsA total of 1214 cases with a histological diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer were retrieved from the Pathology Database of Jinan KingMed Diagnostics (JKD) over a 5-year period. Previous cytology and hrHPV test results of 469 patients carried out within the year before cancer diagnosis were documented.ResultsA higher percentage of patients who had undergone prior screening had micro-invasive cervical carcinoma than patients who had no prior screening (25.4% vs. 12.1%, P < 0.001). Of the 469 patients with available prior screening results, 170 had cytology alone, 161 had hrHPV testing alone, and 138 had both cytology and hrHPV testing. There was a significantly lower percentage of hrHPV-positive cases with adenocarcinoma than with squamous cell carcinoma (77.8% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.001). The hrHPV test showed a significantly higher sensitivity than cytology alone (94.4% vs. 85.3%, P = 0.006). The overall sensitivity of the combination of cytology and hrHPV testing (98.6%) was much higher than that of cytology alone (P < 0.001) but only marginally higher than that of hrHPV testing alone (P = 0.058).ConclusionsThe results revealed that prior cervical screening can detect a significantly larger number of micro-invasive cervical cancers. The hrHPV test can provide a more sensitive and efficient strategy than cytology alone. As the addition of cytology to hrHPV testing can only marginally increase the efficiency of the hrHPV test, hrHPV testing should be used as the primary screening approach, especially in the low-resource settings of China.

BackgroundHigh-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing is more sensitive than cytology for the detection of cervical cancer and its precursors. However, limited and inconsistent data are available about the efficacy of the combination of these two methods for screening cervical adenocarcinoma. This multicenter retrospective study investigated the screening results of a cohort of Chinese patients who were subsequently diagnosed with invasive cervical adenocarcinoma, with the goal of identifying the optimal cervical adenocarcinoma screening method.MethodsWe retrospectively retrieved and analyzed the data from patients with histologically confirmed primary invasive cervical adenocarcinoma from eight local pathology laboratories operated by KingMed Diagnostics, the largest independent operator of pathology laboratories in China, over a 2-year period. Only patients who underwent cytology and/or HR-HPV testing within 6 months before the adenocarcinoma diagnosis were included. HR-HPV DNA was detected using one of two HPV test kits: the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and an HPV genotyping panel (Yaneng Bio, Shenzhen, China).ResultsOf the 311 patients, 136 underwent cytology alone, 106 underwent HR-HPV testing alone, and 69 underwent cytology and HR-HPV co-testing. The sensitivities of cytology alone (64.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.9–72.0) and HR-HPV testing alone (66.0, 95% CI: 57.0–75.1) were similar (P = 0.738). The sensitivity of cytology and HR-HPV co-testing (87.0, 95% CI: 79.0–94.9) was significantly higher than that of either cytology (P = 0.001) or HR-HPV testing alone (P = 0.002).ConclusionsBoth cytology alone and HR-HPV testing alone showed poor screening efficiency, whereas the combination of the two clearly increased the efficiency of primary cervical adenocarcinoma screening. Thus, cytology and HR-HPV co-testing might be the most efficient cervical adenocarcinoma screening method.

No abstract

Background: In 2013, Jinan KingMed Diagnostics (JKD) first established a systematic cervical cytology training and quality control (QC) program in Shandong Province, China. We compared the efficacy of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) detection, cytology, and their combination in routine clinical practice after the implementation of the training and QC program to identify the optimal first-line screening method in this region. Methods: The data of patients histologically diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1, CIN2/3, and invasive cervical cancer (ICC) between January 2014 and December 2017 were retrieved from the JKD database. Cytology and/or HR-HPV testing results within 3 months preceding the CIN1 diagnoses and 6 months preceding the CIN2/3 and ICC diagnoses were analyzed. Results: Prior screening data were available for 1829 CIN1 patients, 2309 CIN2/3 patients, and 680 ICC patients. Cytology alone and HR-HPV testing alone had similar rates of positive results for CIN2/3 (97.2% [854/879] vs. 95.4% [864/906], P = 0.105) and ICC detection (89.1% [205/230] vs. 92.7% [204/220], P = 0.185). Compared with either method alone, co-testing slightly increased the screening sensitivity for CIN2/3 (99.8% [523/524], all P < 0.001) and ICC (99.6% [229/230], all P < 0.001) detection. In the CIN1 group, cervical cytology alone (92.9% [520/560]) was more sensitive than HR-HPV testing alone (79.9% [570/713], P < 0.001), and co-testing (95.3% [530/556]) did not significantly improve the screening sensitivity (P = 0.105).