Background The COVID-19 pandemic threatens the impact of cervical cancer screening and global cervical cancer elimination goals. As cervical cancer screening programmes were adjusting to the new situation, we evaluated the intensity, quality, and outcomes of cervical cancer screening in Slovenia in the first seven months of the pandemic. Methods Historical observational study on data from a population-based cervical cancer screening registry. Number of cervical cytopathology (screening and follow-up), histopathology (diagnostic procedures, invasive procedures and number of newly diagnosed CIN2+ cases) and HPV test results from the entire Slovenian women population between January 1st and September 30th 2020 were compared to a three-year average of the years 2017–19. Findings A two-month screening lock-down between March 12th and May 8th 2020 resulted in an epidemic deficit of screening (-92%), follow-up (-70%), and HPV triage tests (-68%), as well as invasive diagnostic (-47%) and treatment (-15%) of cervical lesions. Time to diagnosis and treatment did not increase; times to laboratory results fluctuated but stayed within standards. Slovenia has entered the second epidemic intending to add as little as possible to the pandemic deficit of screening smears (-23%) and yearly CIN2+ cases (-10%). Women aged 30–39 were most affected, with the highest pandemic deficit of screening smears (-26%) and yearly CIN2+ cases (-19%). Interpretation The pandemic has deeply affected all levels of our lives. New vulnerable groups and inequalities have emerged that require recognition and action. To prevent long-term increases in the cervical cancer burden due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial that organised screening is maintained and monitored in settings where it can be safely and comprehensively provided. Funding None.

BackgroundTo overcome obstacles within the Slovenian organised cervical cancer screening programme, a randomised pilot study of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling among non-attenders was performed, aiming to assess three different screening approaches.Participants and methodsNon-attenders aged 30–64 years from two Slovenian regions were randomised to two HPV self-sampling groups–the opt-in (I1, n = 14.400) and the opt-out (I2, n = 9.556), with a control group (P, n = 2.600). Self-collected samples were analysed using the Hybrid Capture 2 assay. HPV-positive women were invited to a colposcopy. The overall and type-specific intention-to-screen response rates and histological outcomes with a positive predictive value (PPV) according to the women’s age, the screening approach, the level of protection resulting from previous screening history, and the region of residence were assessed.ResultsOf the 26.556 women enrolled, 8.972 (33.8%) responded with self-sample for HPV testing and/or traditional cytology within one year of enrolment. Response rates were 37.7%, 34.0% and 18.4% (p < 0.050) for opt-out, opt-in and control groups. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)2+ was diagnosed in 3.9/1.000, 3.4/1.000, and 3.1/1.000 women (p > 0.050), respectively. PPV of the HPV self-sampling was 12.0% and 9.6% for CIN2+ and CIN3+. The highest PPV was obtained in non-attenders in screening programme for more than 10-years and concordant results of HPV testing with 40.8% for CIN2+ and 38.8% for CIN3+.ConclusionsThe results of our study show that a high response to HPV self-sampling can be achieved also in an opt-in approach, if women are encouraged to choose between self-sampling at home and screening with gynaecologist. In addition, clinically important risk difference for a high-grade cervical lesion exists in the case of a positive result of HPV testing on self-collected samples, depending on the length of the interval since last screening. Stratified management of these women should be strongly considered. Women who were not screened with cytology for at least 10 years should be referred to immediate colposcopy for histology verification instead to delayed re-testing.

Background p16/Ki-67 dual immunocytochemical staining (DS) has been proven as a sensitive and specific test for triage of HPV positive women with good reproducibility and accuracy. However, implementation of the test into an organized screening program (OSP) is not easy. The aims of this study were to compare the performance and agreement of DS results among three Slovenian cytopathological laboratories involved in the national OSP, and to define cases where staining results can be difficult to interpret. Methods Cervical smears were obtained for DS from 129 women referred to colposcopy. Smears were evaluated blindly in three laboratories by a cytotechnologist and a cytopathologist after initial training. Results were positive, suspicious, negative or inadequate. Five characteristics of DS staining were recorded. After primary evaluation, an extensive expert-led additional training was undertaken, including a discussion of difficult cases and a practical exam. Smears were re-evaluated and results compared to primary evaluation. Results After the additional training, the overall percentage of agreement among the three laboratories increased from 77.5 to 89.9% and kappa increased from 0.70 to 0.86. Sensitivity for CIN2+ increased in two laboratories, to 90.5 and 85.7%, without the loss of specificity (75.8%). In one laboratory, the sensitivity slightly decreased from 90.5 to 88.9%, but the specificity increased from 63.6 to 68.2%. Difficult cases had significantly less DS cells, weak intensity of p16 staining, suboptimal cell morphology and background staining compared to positive cases. Conclusion Additional expert-led training and discussion of difficult cases are necessary for accurate interpretation of DS in laboratories involved in OSP. The most difficult cases were those with single stained cells and weak p16 staining. Training protocol for safe implementation of p16/Ki-67 DS in OSP is proposed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13000-019-0821-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Backgroundp16/Ki-67 dual immunocytochemical staining (DS) is considered easy to interpret if evaluators are properly trained, however, there is no consensus on what constitutes proper training. In the present study we evaluated a protocol for teaching DS evaluation on students inexperienced in cervical cytology.MethodsInitial training on 40 DS conventional smears was provided by a senior cytotechnologist experienced in such evaluation. Afterwards, two students evaluated 118 cases. Additional training consisted mainly of discussing discrepant cases from the first evaluation and was followed by evaluation of new 383 cases. Agreement and accuracy of students’ results were compared among the participants and to the results of the reference after both evaluations. We also noted time needed for evaluation of one slide as well as intra-observer variability of the teacher’s results.ResultsAt the end of the study, agreement between students and reference was higher compared to those after initial training (overall percent agreement [OPA] 81.4% for each student, kappa 0.512 and 0.527 vs. OPA 78.3% and 87.2%, kappa 0.556 and 0.713, respectively). However, accuracy results differed between the two students. After initial training sensitivity was 4.3% points and 2.9% points higher, respectively compared to the reference, while specificity was 30.6% points and 24.4% points lower, respectively, compared to the reference. At the end of the study, the sensitivity reached by one student was the same as that of the reference, while it was 2.6% points lower for the other student. There was a statistically significant difference in specificity between one student and the reference and also between students (16.7 and 15.1% points). Towards the end of the study, one student needed 5.2 min for evaluating one slide while the other needed 8.2 min. The intra-observer variability of the senior cytotechnologist was in the range of “very good” in both arms of the study.ConclusionsIn teaching DS evaluation, the students’ progress has to be monitored using several criteria like agreement, accuracy and time needed for evaluating one slide. The monitoring process has to continue for a while after students reach satisfactory results in order to assure a continuous good performance. Monitoring of teacher’s performance is also advisable.

No abstract

Background The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of p16/Ki-67 dual immunostaining (p16/ Ki-67 DS) in cervical cytology and the number of positive p16/Ki-67 cells to diagnose high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+) in colposcopy population. Subjects and methods We performed an analysis on a subset cohort of 174 women enrolled within a large-scale randomised controlled human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling project organised as part of the population-based Cervical Cancer Screening Programme ZORA in Slovenia. This subset cohort of patients was invited to the colposcopy clinic, underwent p16/Ki-67 DS cervical cytology and had the number of p16/Ki-67 positive cells determined. Results Among analysed women, 42/174 (24.1%) had histologically confirmed CIN2+. The risk for CIN2+ was increasing with the number of positive cells (p < 0.001). The sensitivity of p16/Ki-67 DS for detection of CIN2+ was 88.1%, specificity was 65.2%, positive predictive value was 44.6% and negative predictive value was 94.5%. Conclusions Dual p16/Ki-67 immunostaining for the detection of CIN2+ has shown high sensitivity and high negative predictive value in our study, which is comparable to available published data. The number of p16/Ki-67 positive cells was significantly associated with the probability of CIN2+ detection. We observed a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in specificity if the cut-off for a positive test was shifted from one cell to three cells.

BackgroundWe are presenting the results of the Slovenian human papillomaviruses (HPV) self-sampling pilot study in colposcopy population of National Cervical Cancer Screening Programme ZORA for the first time. One-year and four-year follow-up results are presented for two different self-sampling devices.Participants and methodsA total of 209 women were enrolled in the study at colposcopy clinic. Prior to the gynaecological examination, all women performed self-collected vaginal swab at the clinic; 111 using Qvintip and 98 using HerSwab self-sampling device. After self-sampling, two cervical smears were taken by a clinician; first for conventional cytology and second for HPV test. After that, all women underwent colposcopy and a cervical biopsy if needed. We compared sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of cytology (at the cut-off atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or more [ASC-US+]) and HPV test (on self- and clinician-taken samples) for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) after one and four years of follow-up. Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay was used for all HPV testing.ResultsThe mean age of 209 women was 37.6 years and HPV positivity rate 67.0% (140/209), 36.9 years and 70.3% (78/111) in the Qvintip group and 38.4 years and 63.3% (62/98) in the HerSwab group, respectively. Overall, percent agreement between self and clinician-taken samples was 81.8% (kappa 0.534) in the Qvintip and 77.1% (kappa 0.456) in the HerSwab group. In the Qvintip group, the longitudinal sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 71.8%, 75.0%, 83.6%, 60.0% for cytology; 83.1%, 51.3%, 75.6% and 62.5% for HPV test of self-taken samples and 94.4%, 57.5%, 79.8% and 85.2% for HPV test on clinician-taken samples. In the HerSwab group, the corresponding results were 71.7%, 46.7%, 61.3%, 58.3% for cytology; 75.0%, 47.7%, 62.9% and 61.8% for HPV test on self-taken samples and 94.3%, 44.4%, 66.7% and 87.0% for clinician-taken samples, respectively.ConclusionsThe results confirm that HPV self-sampling is not as accurate as clinician sampling when HC2 is used. All HPV tests showed a higher sensitivity in detecting CIN2+ compared to cytology. Due to non-inferior longitudinal sensitivity of HPV self-sampling compared to cytology, HPV self-sampling might be an option for non-attenders to the National Cancer Screening Programme.

Background The Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) High-Risk HPV DNA assay serves as a triage test in the Slovenian national cervical cancer screening programme ZORA. To improve the limited analytical accuracy of HC2 test results near the cut-off value (1.0 relative light units/cut-off (RLU/CO)), we follow an internal protocol of repeating the test on all samples with borderline results within the 0.7-2.0 RLU/CO interval. The aim of the study was (i) to determine the clinical relevance of HC2 test results within three different “grey zones” for samples stored in Specimen Transport Medium (STM) and (ii) to determine whether the current algorithm of retesting “grey zone” STM specimens with the HC2 assay is clinically relevant. Patients and methods The study included 594 women between 20 and 65 years of age. All participating women were referred for colposcopy, and in cases of abnormal results, biopsy was performed. We assessed the distribution of HC2 test results and the corresponding proportion of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) lesions in three different “grey zones” (1.0–2.5, 0.4–4.0 and 0.7–2.0 RLU/CO), retested specimens with results within a 0.4–4.0 RLU/CO interval and calculated the sensitivity and specificity for HC2 at different RLU/CO values. Results The proportion of specimens within 1.0–2.5, 0.4–4.0 and 0.7–2.0 RLU/CO intervals was 3.9%, 10.8% and 4.5%, respectively. The proportion of CIN2+ lesions within these “grey zones” was 2.5%, 5.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Retesting the samples did not detect any additional CIN2+ cases. Within the 1.0–2.5 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity decreased from 93.8% to 91.4%, while the specificity increased from 63.3% to 67.5%; for the 0.4–4.0 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity decreased from 95.1% to 89.5%, while the specificity increased from 56.8% to 69.4%; and for the 0.7–2.0 RLU/CO interval, the sensitivity remained nearly constant (94.4 vs. 93.2%), while the specificity increased from 60.6% to 66.4%. Conclusions Our results show that retesting STM samples within the “grey zones” is not necessary. Retesting samples in the negative “grey zone” does not increase sensitivity, and retesting in the positive “grey zone” is not followed by a less intensive management of women, since these women are recalled regardless of the results of the retest. Furthermore, the majority of samples retain the original HC2 results after retest, and the number of CIN2+ lesions among women with “grey zone” HC2 results is low.