Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions.

Testing for DNA of 13 high-risk HPV types with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) test has consistently been shown to perform better in triage of women with cervical cytology results showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) but often not in triage of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) detected in cervical cancer screening. In a metaanalysis, we compared the accuracy of the APTIMA HPV test, which identifies RNA of 14 high-risk HPV types, to HC2 for the triage of women with ASC-US or LSIL. Literature search-targeted studies where the accuracy of APTIMA HPV and HC2 for detection of underlying CIN2/31 was assessed concomitantly including verification of all cases of ASC-US and LSIL. HSROC (Hierarchical Summary ROC) curve regression was used to compute the pooled absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity. Eight studies, comprising 1,839 ASC-US and 1,887 LSIL cases, were retrieved. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of APTIMA to triage ASC-US to detect underlying CIN3 or worse was 96.2% (95% CI 5 91.7-98.3%) and 54.9%

Background The best method to identify women with minor cervical lesions that require diagnostic work-up remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of p16INK4a immunocytochemistry compared to hrHPV DNA testing with hybrid capture II (HC2) to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+ and CIN3+) in women with a cervical cytology showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade cervical lesions (LSIL). Methods A literature search was performed in three electronic databases to identify studies eligible for this meta-analysis. Results Seventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity of p16INK4a to detect CIN2+ was 83.2% (95%CI: 76.8–88.2%) and 83.8% (95%CI: 73.5–90.6%) in ASC-US and LSIL cervical cytology respectively; pooled specificities were 71.0% (95%CI: 65.0–76.4%) and 65.7% (95%CI: 54.2–75.6%). Eight studies provided both HC2 and p16INK4a triage data. p16INK4a and HC2 have a similar sensitivity and p16INK4a has significantly higher specificity in the triage of women with ASC-US (relative sensitivity: 0.95 (95%CI: 0.89–1.01); relative specificity: 1.82 (95%CI: 1.57–2.12)). In the triage of LSIL, p16INK4a has a significantly lower sensitivity but higher specificity compared to HC2 (relative sensitivity: 0.87 (95%CI: 0.81–0.94); relative specificity: 2.74 (1.99–3.76)). Conclusion The published literature indicates an improved accuracy of p16INK4a compared to HC2 testing in the triage of ASC-US. In LSIL triage p16INK4a is more specific but less sensitive.

No abstract

No abstract