Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population

New Quantitative PCR Technology for Screening Human Papillomavirus Test – Identification of 25 Genotypes: A Molecular Epidemiology and Cross- Sectional Study

“…in a systematic literature search of 40 studies with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old, for cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) the pooled sensitivity for hybrid capture 2 (HC2), conventional cytology (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance AS-CUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, different to our findings (care GENETM-HPV test sensitivity 100% compared with COBAS system test) [31]. While pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively [31]. Others authors report that the sensitivity of thin-layer Pap (with a result of ≥ASCUS) for identifying women with CIN 3 or higher was only 61.3% compared with 88.2% for HPV testing by PCR and 90.8% by signal amplification [32][33].…”

“…Three samples (from the group of 60 samples with HSIL) had infection with HPV-16 (n= 2) and HPV-18 (n= 1). However, with care GENETM-HPV test we detect a total of 99 positive samples to 30 HPV-genotypes (6,11,16,18,31,33,34,35,39,40,42,43,44,45, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 and 81). The most prevalence genotypes were genotypes 6 (13.2%; 95% CI 9.5-16.9) and 16 (4.6%; 95% CI 2.5-7.1), followed by genotypes 53, 58, 59 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.2-4.6), 31, 61 (2.5%; 95% CI 0.9-4.3), 18, 51, 56 (2.1%; 95% CI 0.6-4.0), and 33 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0-0.9).…”

New Quantitative PCR Technology for Screening Human Papillomavirus Test – Identification of 25 Genotypes: A Molecular Epidemiology and Cross- Sectional Study

“…in a systematic literature search of 40 studies with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old, for cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) the pooled sensitivity for hybrid capture 2 (HC2), conventional cytology (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance AS-CUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, different to our findings (care GENETM-HPV test sensitivity 100% compared with COBAS system test) [31]. While pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively [31]. Others authors report that the sensitivity of thin-layer Pap (with a result of ≥ASCUS) for identifying women with CIN 3 or higher was only 61.3% compared with 88.2% for HPV testing by PCR and 90.8% by signal amplification [32][33].…”

“…Three samples (from the group of 60 samples with HSIL) had infection with HPV-16 (n= 2) and HPV-18 (n= 1). However, with care GENETM-HPV test we detect a total of 99 positive samples to 30 HPV-genotypes (6,11,16,18,31,33,34,35,39,40,42,43,44,45, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 and 81). The most prevalence genotypes were genotypes 6 (13.2%; 95% CI 9.5-16.9) and 16 (4.6%; 95% CI 2.5-7.1), followed by genotypes 53, 58, 59 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.2-4.6), 31, 61 (2.5%; 95% CI 0.9-4.3), 18, 51, 56 (2.1%; 95% CI 0.6-4.0), and 33 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0-0.9).…”

A New Brazilian Device for Cervical Cancer Screening: Acceptability and Accuracy of Self-sampling

“… 16 17 18 HPV-based cervical cancer screening increased by 90% the detection of CIN3+ and, due to the high negative predictive value, is considered superior to cytology. 16 19 20 A population-based study with 1.160,981 women from rural China demonstrated the efficiency of HPV testing in detecting CIN2+ lesions and supports the introduction of HPV testing in primary screening in China. 21 The benefit of HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening is still debatable regarding the detection of adenocarcinomas.…”

Primary and secondary prevention of uterine cervical cancer: Up-To-Date Information, Guidelines, and the need for their application in Greece

“…Consistent evidence provided by various studies supports the use of the HPV DNA test as opposed to the Pap test, due to the former's higher sensitivity 31,34,35 .…”

New Quantitative PCR Technology for Screening Human Papillomavirus Test – Identification of 25 Genotypes: A Molecular Epidemiology and Cross- Sectional Study

“…in a systematic literature search of 40 studies with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old, for cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) the pooled sensitivity for hybrid capture 2 (HC2), conventional cytology (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance AS-CUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, different to our findings (care GENETM-HPV test sensitivity 100% compared with COBAS system test) [31]. While pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively [31]. Others authors report that the sensitivity of thin-layer Pap (with a result of ≥ASCUS) for identifying women with CIN 3 or higher was only 61.3% compared with 88.2% for HPV testing by PCR and 90.8% by signal amplification [32][33].…”

“…Three samples (from the group of 60 samples with HSIL) had infection with HPV-16 (n= 2) and HPV-18 (n= 1). However, with care GENETM-HPV test we detect a total of 99 positive samples to 30 HPV-genotypes (6,11,16,18,31,33,34,35,39,40,42,43,44,45, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 and 81). The most prevalence genotypes were genotypes 6 (13.2%; 95% CI 9.5-16.9) and 16 (4.6%; 95% CI 2.5-7.1), followed by genotypes 53, 58, 59 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.2-4.6), 31, 61 (2.5%; 95% CI 0.9-4.3), 18, 51, 56 (2.1%; 95% CI 0.6-4.0), and 33 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0-0.9).…”

A New Brazilian Device for Cervical Cancer Screening: Acceptability and Accuracy of Self-sampling

“… 16 17 18 HPV-based cervical cancer screening increased by 90% the detection of CIN3+ and, due to the high negative predictive value, is considered superior to cytology. 16 19 20 A population-based study with 1.160,981 women from rural China demonstrated the efficiency of HPV testing in detecting CIN2+ lesions and supports the introduction of HPV testing in primary screening in China. 21 The benefit of HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening is still debatable regarding the detection of adenocarcinomas.…”

Primary and secondary prevention of uterine cervical cancer: Up-To-Date Information, Guidelines, and the need for their application in Greece

“…Consistent evidence provided by various studies supports the use of the HPV DNA test as opposed to the Pap test, due to the former's higher sensitivity 31,34,35 .…”

New Quantitative PCR Technology for Screening Human Papillomavirus Test – Identification of 25 Genotypes: A Molecular Epidemiology and Cross- Sectional Study

“…in a systematic literature search of 40 studies with more than 140,000 women aged between 20 and 70 years old, for cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) of grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) the pooled sensitivity for hybrid capture 2 (HC2), conventional cytology (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance AS-CUS+) were 89.9%, 62.5% and 72.9%, respectively, different to our findings (care GENETM-HPV test sensitivity 100% compared with COBAS system test) [31]. While pooled specificity estimates were 89.9%, 96.6%, and 90.3%, respectively [31]. Others authors report that the sensitivity of thin-layer Pap (with a result of ≥ASCUS) for identifying women with CIN 3 or higher was only 61.3% compared with 88.2% for HPV testing by PCR and 90.8% by signal amplification [32][33].…”

“…Three samples (from the group of 60 samples with HSIL) had infection with HPV-16 (n= 2) and HPV-18 (n= 1). However, with care GENETM-HPV test we detect a total of 99 positive samples to 30 HPV-genotypes (6,11,16,18,31,33,34,35,39,40,42,43,44,45, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 and 81). The most prevalence genotypes were genotypes 6 (13.2%; 95% CI 9.5-16.9) and 16 (4.6%; 95% CI 2.5-7.1), followed by genotypes 53, 58, 59 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.2-4.6), 31, 61 (2.5%; 95% CI 0.9-4.3), 18, 51, 56 (2.1%; 95% CI 0.6-4.0), and 33 (0.3%; 95% CI 0.0-0.9).…”

A New Brazilian Device for Cervical Cancer Screening: Acceptability and Accuracy of Self-sampling

“… 16 17 18 HPV-based cervical cancer screening increased by 90% the detection of CIN3+ and, due to the high negative predictive value, is considered superior to cytology. 16 19 20 A population-based study with 1.160,981 women from rural China demonstrated the efficiency of HPV testing in detecting CIN2+ lesions and supports the introduction of HPV testing in primary screening in China. 21 The benefit of HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening is still debatable regarding the detection of adenocarcinomas.…”

Primary and secondary prevention of uterine cervical cancer: Up-To-Date Information, Guidelines, and the need for their application in Greece

“…Consistent evidence provided by various studies supports the use of the HPV DNA test as opposed to the Pap test, due to the former's higher sensitivity 31,34,35 .…”