Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling might be a promising tool to increase effectiveness of primary HPV screening programs when offered to non-attendees. However, effectiveness could decrease if regular attendees "switch" to self-sampling, because self-sampling test characteristics may be inferior. We examined under which conditions the harms would outweigh the benefits.Methods: The MISCAN-cervix model was used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and costs of offering HPV self-sampling to non-attendees. We varied the relative CIN2

PurposeWithin the last decade, SurePath and ThinPrep [both liquid-based cytology (LBC) tests] have replaced conventional cytology (CC) as primary test method in cervical cancer screening programs of multiple countries. The aim of our study was to examine the effect in the Dutch screening program.MethodsAll primary smears taken within this program from 2000 to 2011 were analyzed using the nationwide registry of histo- and cytopathology (PALGA) with a follow-up until March 2013. The percentage of smears classified as borderline/mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) and >BMD as well as CIN and cervical cancer detection rates were compared between SurePath and ThinPrep versus CC by logistic regression analyses (adjusted for age, screen region, socioeconomic status, and calendar time).ResultsWe included 3,118,685 CC, 1,313,731 SurePath, and 1,584,587 ThinPrep smears. Using SurePath resulted in an increased rate of primary smears classified as >BMD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.16)]. CIN I and II+ detection rates increased by 14 % [OR = 1.14 (95% CI 1.08–1.20)] and 8 % [OR = 1.08 (95% CI 1.05–1.12)]. Cervical cancer detection rates were unaffected. Implementing ThinPrep did not result in major alterations of the cytological classification of smears, and it did not affect CIN detection rates. While not significant, cervical cancer detection rates were lower [OR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.75–1.01)].ConclusionsThe impact of replacing CC by LBC as primary test method depends on the type of LBC test used. Only the use of SurePath was associated with increased CIN II+ detection, although it simultaneously increased the detection of CIN I.

BackgroundVaccination against the oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 will reduce the prevalence of these types, thereby also reducing cervical cancer risk in unvaccinated women. This (measurable) herd effect will be limited at first, but is expected to increase over time. At a certain herd immunity level, tailoring screening to vaccination status may no longer be worth the additional effort. Moreover, uniform screening may be the only viable option. We therefore investigated at what level of herd immunity it is cost-effective to also reduce screening intensity in unvaccinated women.MethodsWe used the MISCAN-Cervix model to determine the optimal screening strategy for a pre-vaccination population and for vaccinated women (~80% decreased risk), assuming a willingness-to-pay of €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. We considered HPV testing, cytology testing and co-testing and varied the start age of screening, the screening interval and the number of lifetime screens. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening unvaccinated women with the strategy optimized to the pre-vaccination population as compared to with the strategy optimized to vaccinated women, assuming different herd immunity levels.ResultsPrimary HPV screening with cytology triage was the optimal strategy, with 8 lifetime screens for the pre-vaccination population and 3 for vaccinated women. The ICER of screening unvaccinated women 8 times instead of 3 was €28,085 in the absence of herd immunity. At around 50% herd immunity, the ICER reached €50,000.ConclusionFrom a herd immunity level of 50% onwards, screening intensity based on the pre-vaccination risk level becomes cost-ineffective for unvaccinated women. Reducing the screening intensity of uniform screening may then be considered.

Objective To compare the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer diagnosed within 72 months after a normal screening sample between conventional cytology and liquid based cytology tests SurePath and ThinPrep. Design Retrospective population based cohort study. Setting Nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA), January 2000 to March 2013. Population Women with 5 924 474 normal screening samples (23 833 123 person years). Exposure Use of SurePath or ThinPrep versus conventional cytology as screening test. Main outcome measure 72 month cumulative incidence of invasive cervical cancer after a normal screening sample for each screening test. Cox regression analyses assessed the hazard ratios, adjusted for calendar time, age, screening history, and socioeconomic status and including laboratories as random effects. Results The 72 month cumulative cancer incidence was 58.5 (95% confidence interval 54.6 to 62.7) per 100 000 normal conventional cytology samples, compared with 66.8 (56.7 to 78.7) for ThinPrep and 44.6 (37.8 to 52.6) for SurePath. Compared with conventional cytology, the hazard of invasive cancer was 19% lower (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.99) for SurePath, mainly caused by a 27% lower hazard (0.73, 0.57 to 0.93) of a clinically detected cancer. For ThinPrep, the hazard was on average 15% higher (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.95 to 1.38), mainly caused by a 56% higher hazard of a screen detected cancer (1.56, 1.17 to 2.08). Conclusions These findings should provoke reconsideration of the assumed similarity in sensitivity to detect progressive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia between different types of liquid based cytology and conventional cytology.

Background:We compared the sensitivity and specificity of liquid-based cytology (LBC) and computer-assisted reading for SurePath/FocalPoint and ThinPrep with those of manually read conventional cytology in routine cervical screening in four Danish laboratories.Methods:Using data from five nationwide registers, technological phases were identified by slide preparation, reading technique, and triage of borderline cytology. Trends in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) were an indicator of the technology's relative sensitivity, and trends in false-positive tests an indicator of relative specificity.Results:At 23–29 years, SurePath/FocalPoint statistically significantly increased the detection of ⩾CIN3 by 85% compared with manually read conventional cytology. The 11% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 30–44 years, the increase with SurePath/FocalPoint was 58% the 16% increase with ThinPrep was not significant. At 45–59 years, both technologies led to nonsignificant decreases in the detection. SurePath/FocalPoint doubled the frequency of false-positive tests at any age. With ThinPrep, these proportions remained the same at 23–29 years, but decreased by two-thirds at 45–59 years. In a fourth laboratory with continuous use of manually read conventional cytology, no such trends were seen.Conclusions:The sensitivity and specificity of modern LBC and computer-assisted reading technologies may be brand- and age-dependent.

Objective: Over the last decade, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) detection has increased in the Netherlands. We investigated the underlying mechanism by quantifying the increase, and analyzing patterns of CIN and cervical cancer detection over time.Methods: We observed annual CIN and cervical cancer detection rates (DRs) per 10,000 primary smears within the Dutch screening programme for 2000-2011. Joinpoint analyses were performed to determine changes in time trends, logistic regression analyses to assess the relative risk of calendar time on histological outcomes, adjusted for demographic factors and type of primary cytology test used.

No abstract

Offering vaccination to adults, especially at cervical cancer screening visits (for women) and during STI consultations (for both sexes), would substantially reduce HPV incidence and would be an efficient policy option to improve HPV prevention and subsequently avert cervical and possibly male HPV-related cancers.