This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research article
David Robert Grimes
Dublin City University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3140-3278
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection andcombinations are practical modalities for cervical-screening. While life-saving, false positive and negative results are possible, leading to potential over or under treatment. Quantifying this is complicated by the increasing number of options available, including parallel co-testing and sequential triage. As HPV vaccination rates increase, it also has a potential impact onscreening test performance and interpretation of results.
Methods:A modelling approach was used to compare different screening modalities in terms of Cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 and 3 detected and missed, false positives leading to excess colposcopy, and number of tests required to achieve a given accuracy. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of different modalities were simulated under varying levels of HPV vaccination.
Results:The model suggested that in a cohort of 1000 women, LBC screening typically misses 4.9 cases (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.5-6.7), with 95 (95% CI: 93-97%) excess colposcopies. With primary HPV testing, 2.0 (95% CI:1.9-2.1) were missed with 99 (95% CI:98-101) excess colposcopies. Co-testing reduced missed cases to 0.5 (95% CI:0.3-0.7) but dramatically increased excess colposcopy referral (184, 95% CI:182-188). Conversely, triage testing with reflex screening substantially reduced excess colposcopy to 9.6 (95% CI:9.3-10) at the cost of missing more cases (6.4, 95% CI:5.1-8.0). Over a life-time of screening, women who always attend co-testing hada 93.8-100% chance of a false positive over screening life-time. For annual, 3-year, and 5-year triage testing (either LBC with HPV reflex or vice-versa), lifetime risk of a false positive is 35.1%, 13.4%, and 8.3% respectively.Results of this work indicate that as HPV vaccination rates increase, HPV based screening approaches result in fewer unnecessary colposcopies than LBC approaches.
Conclusion:Clinical relevance of cervical cancer screening is crucially dependent upon prevalence of cervical dysplasia and/or HPV infection or vaccination in a population, and the sensitivity and specificity of modalities employed. Although screening is life-saving, false negatives and positives inevitably occur, and over-testing runs risk of significant harm, including potential over-treatment. As HPV becomes less common, HPV-based modalities may have greater utility.
Keywords
Cervical cancer, screening, HPV Vaccination
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 11 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
This is a preprint. It has not completed peer review.
Research article
David Robert Grimes
Dublin City University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3140-3278
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
Version 1
Posted 11 May, 2020
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection andcombinations are practical modalities for cervical-screening. While life-saving, false positive and negative results are possible, leading to potential over or under treatment. Quantifying this is complicated by the increasing number of options available, including parallel co-testing and sequential triage. As HPV vaccination rates increase, it also has a potential impact onscreening test performance and interpretation of results.
Methods:A modelling approach was used to compare different screening modalities in terms of Cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 and 3 detected and missed, false positives leading to excess colposcopy, and number of tests required to achieve a given accuracy. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of different modalities were simulated under varying levels of HPV vaccination.
Results:The model suggested that in a cohort of 1000 women, LBC screening typically misses 4.9 cases (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.5-6.7), with 95 (95% CI: 93-97%) excess colposcopies. With primary HPV testing, 2.0 (95% CI:1.9-2.1) were missed with 99 (95% CI:98-101) excess colposcopies. Co-testing reduced missed cases to 0.5 (95% CI:0.3-0.7) but dramatically increased excess colposcopy referral (184, 95% CI:182-188). Conversely, triage testing with reflex screening substantially reduced excess colposcopy to 9.6 (95% CI:9.3-10) at the cost of missing more cases (6.4, 95% CI:5.1-8.0). Over a life-time of screening, women who always attend co-testing hada 93.8-100% chance of a false positive over screening life-time. For annual, 3-year, and 5-year triage testing (either LBC with HPV reflex or vice-versa), lifetime risk of a false positive is 35.1%, 13.4%, and 8.3% respectively.Results of this work indicate that as HPV vaccination rates increase, HPV based screening approaches result in fewer unnecessary colposcopies than LBC approaches.
Conclusion:Clinical relevance of cervical cancer screening is crucially dependent upon prevalence of cervical dysplasia and/or HPV infection or vaccination in a population, and the sensitivity and specificity of modalities employed. Although screening is life-saving, false negatives and positives inevitably occur, and over-testing runs risk of significant harm, including potential over-treatment. As HPV becomes less common, HPV-based modalities may have greater utility.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...